
Class H)'p l> ( 

j / 

Book. ¥ £ > 



Copyright^ 



CDRfRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



SOCIALISM 

FKOM THE 

CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO 
DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 

TORONTO 




%J4*n^asV/ait&te4tJ y 



SOCIALISM 

FROM THE 

CHRISTIAN STANDPOINT 

TEN CONFERENCES 

BY 

FATHER BERNARD VAUGHAN, S.J. 

AUTHOR OF "THE SINS OF SOCIETY," "SOCIETY 

AND THE SAVIOUR," "LIFE LESSONS 

FROM JOAN OF ARC," ETC., ETC. 



Hefcr gorfe 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

1912 

All rights reserved 






Empttmt Potest. 

ANTHONY J. MAAS, S.J., 

Provincial, Maryland, 

New York Province. 

WfttI ©fartat. 

REMIGIUS LAFORT, S.T.D., 

Censor Librorum. 

Jmptimatttr. 

^JOHN CARDINAL FARLEY, 

Archbishop of New York. 

New York, November 14, 1912. 



COPYBIGHT, 1912, 

By THE MACMILLAN COMPAQ. 



Set up and electrotyped. Published November, 1912. 



NorfooolJ $«ss 

J. 8. Gushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. 

Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 



©CI.A327989 



DEDICATION 

I dedicate this series of conferences to my many friends, 
in many walks of life, who, by their courtesy, kindness, and 
hospitality during my stay in the United States, have placed 
me under an indebtedness which I can never hope to repay. 

The memory of my delightful visit to the States of America 
shall, indeed, live on in freshness, till the end of my days, 
while, so long as God permits me to stand at His Altar, the 
names of my dear friends shall rise up before Him for the 
fulness of His choicest blessings. 

More it is not given me to do, unless it be to express the 
hope that, between the covers of this book they may find, 
not inarticulately uttered, many echoes of their own thoughts 
and reasonings about Socialism. 



PREFACE 

It is at the earnest and repeated request of 
very many non-Catholics as well as Catholics 
who heard them, that I am venturing to publish 
these Conferences on Socialism from the stand- 
point of Christianity. 

Six of the number were preached during the 
Lent of 1912, in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, New 
York. To make the set more complete, and, 
I hope more useful, I have added the remaining 
four addresses. 

May I make bold to beg my readers not to for- 
get, when perusing the pages of this book, that 
they are rather listening to the spoken, than 
reading the written, word? I do not want to 
"talk like a book." 

These Conferences do not pretend to be ex- 
haustive treatises on the subject with which they 
deal. On the contrary, they are meant to open 
up vistas of thought, while they themselves deal 
rather with the larger principles of the question 
than enter fully into the scholastic and economic 
difficulties to which they give rise. 

3 



4 PREFACE 

To those persons who have persuaded them- 
selves that Socialism is no menace to Creed or 
Country, I should like to point out that it is 
surely, if slowly, gaining ground, and winning 
clients all the world over. To-day, in Germany, 
Socialists command 35 per cent of the total elec- 
torate, occupy 110 seats in the Reichstag, and 
draw 4,252,000 votes. Besides, they hold 2000 
official positions under government, and they can 
count on the support of all such Labour Unions as 
are inspired by the spirit of revolt against Capi- 
tal. In the Fatherland, Socialism is a cult, a 
religion — a very potent factor in the life of the 
nation. 

In France, too, Socialism is alive, active, grow- 
ing, and full of enterprise. In the Chamber there 
are 76 Socialist Deputies, while no less than 2769 
of them hold government appointments. 

In England, with its 42 members of Parlia- 
ment and its newly formed organization and its 
zealous propaganda, Socialism has already done 
deeds and pushed forward measures which have 
forced us to ask with the poet, 

" Who can tell how all will end ? " 

Surely these facts alone may serve to remind 
my readers that Socialism is not " the vain thing' ' 



PREFACE 5 

nor " the negligible quantity " which some writers 
would have us believe. 

But perhaps nothing better teaches us the hold 
which Socialism has to-day than a study of its 
press. 

It is the press which forms and shapes public 
opinion. Nobody understands this better than 
the Socialist. Accordingly, wherever Socialism is 
strong, there its press, too, is strong. In Ger- 
many, it publishes 159 papers ; in Italy, 92 ; in 
France, 70 ; in Belgium, 56 ; and in England, 12. 
The " comrades" are thoroughly organized, they 
are in dead earnest, and are ready, when called 
upon, to make any sacrifice in the interests of 
their cause. 

But some one will say, " Yes, on the other side 
of the Atlantic Socialism is, indeed, a force of 
growing strength, but not so here in the States. 
Why, it has not sent even one single ' comrade ' 
to Congress. It has not the ear of the people." 
True, the Socialist Party is without a single rep- 
resentative in Congress, and it has failed to carry 
other political positions; but, for all that, we 
must not sit down with folded arms and flatter 
ourselves that Socialism has had a setback, and 
is becoming weak and anaemic. 

Nothing in the States is more surely growing ; 



6 PREFACE 

nothing is gathering greater strength ; nothing is 
more violently alive to-day than Socialism. 

Take what it did in New York State yesterday, 
election day. Socialists more than doubled their 
vote. In New York City they counted a gain of 
12,000, in Buffalo a gain of 2400, in Rochester a 
gain of 200, while in all the smaller cities the vote 
has been twice the weight it was in 1908. 

In Greater New York, Eugene V. Debs polled 
33,423 votes for Presidency; an increase of 7458 
on his 1908 vote. 

Again, look at California. There Socialists have 
raised their vote from 28,659 to the astonishing 
figure 66,350 ! 

To-day California leads in growth of the social- 
ist vote, Indiana ranks second, and Wisconsin 
comes third. Take the country throughout, and 
we learn, in spite of the losses caused by the New 
Party, that the socialist vote has run all the way 
from 420,964 to 712,709. 

But Socialism in the United States must not be 
judged only by its political vote. There is some- 
thing on which it relies far more, something for 
which it strives far more energetically. The 
Socialist Party takes for its first article of faith 
the printed word. Already they are issuing 13 
dailies, and are adding 4 more ; they publish 350 



PREFACE 7 

weeklies, and are increasing that number; they 
own 25 monthlies and, besides, many hundred 
" Locals." 

Socialist Propagandists are, perhaps, even more 
active on the " Capitalist " magazine and news- 
paper than upon their own. I am assured that it 
would be no easy matter to give a list of news- 
paper and magazine offices in which Socialists are 
not occupying responsible positions. 

Certain it is that we find quite a plentiful sup- 
ply of articles in our current literature written by 
" comrades." 

Behold the platforms from which they harangue 
the people, and through which they enlist recruits 
by the thousand ! 

Besides relying on the written, they confide no 
less on the spoken word ; the national headquar- 
ters maintains a staff of organized agitators 
under salary. Much care is also taken, and no 
little money is spent in training a large corps of 
soap-box orators, whose mission it is to orate on 
street corners and in the parks. In the Rand 
school these enthusiasts are grouped and taught 
their business. 

The more we investigate the matter, the more 
thoroughly convinced we become that Socialism 
in the United States needs watching, lest like a 



8 PREFACE 

sand-storm or a forest fire, a cyclone or an ava- 
lanche, it may assume proportions and gather a 
momentum almost impossible to deal with. 

Study Socialism for yourselves as it is in your 
midst, and you will discover that it is " a live 
wire" and waiting to be switched on, "to give 
light," say the " comrades " ; "to spread ruin ! " 
exclaim patriots. 

But even upon the supposition that Socialism 
was a theory in the air only, with no practical 
outlook at all, it would still be the duty of Catho- 
lics to point out that economically it is unsound, 
philosophically it is false, and ethically it is 
wrong. Bad in theory, it would be even worse 
in practice. 

As Catholics, we must try and bring back to 
Christianity from Socialism all persons who have 
been smitten and captured by its plausible teach- 
ings. It is up to us "to blaze the trail," and 
to lead them from the desert, pathless, and bar- 
ren lands of Socialism, over "the great divide," 
down through forests, and over foothills, into 
the vine slopes and the fertile valleys of the 
Christian Fold, to the feet of the Good Shepherd, 
Christ Jesus, our Lord. 

In conclusion let me plead with my indul- 
gent readers to take into consideration that 



PREFACE 9 

these Conferences were prepared for publica- 
tion between pulpit and platform engagements, 
and while voyaging by sea and journeying on 
land between the Hudson and the Yukon. Books 
of reference were not get-at-able en route. There 
were no libraries on the Ice-fields, none amid the 
Rockies. Accordingly, in some instances, I was 
forced to be satisfied with my notes without giv- 
ing the references. 

I wish to express my warm thanks to Father 
C. Plater, S.J., and Father Husslein, S.J., for the 
kind help I have received from them. 

BERNARD VAUGHAN, S.J. 

St. Ignatius' s, 

980 Park Avenue, New York, 

November 7, 1912. 





CONTENTS 


PAGE 


I. 


Socialism and the Papacy 


. 13 


II. 


Socialism and the State ... 


. 40 


III. 


Socialism and the Individual 


. 72 


IV. 


Socialism and the Family 


. 118 


V. 


Socialism and Religion . 


. 153 


VI. 


Socialism and Christian Socialists 


. 198 


VII. 


Socialism and the Rights of Ownershi 


p . 237 


VIII. 


Socialism and the Duties of Ownershii 


. 278 


IX. 


Socialism and its Promises 


• . 312 


X. 


Socialism and Social Reformation 


. 330 



11 



SOCIALISM FROM THE CHRISTIAN 
STANDPOINT 

I 
SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 

A few years ago, during a visit to Rome, I had 
the privilege of hearing from our present Pontiff, 
Pius X, personal, paternal advice as to what I 
considered my own special mission and work in 
life. 

I was explaining to the Holy Father how my 
ambition was to do something for the poor workers 
in the slums, and at the same time help to get the 
truths of Christianity before those who were en- 
joying the better things of life. Then it was the 
Holy Father told me that in all I said or did I 
was ever to keep in mind the great principles of 
Catholic teaching, expounded in the Encyclicals 
of his predecessor, Leo XIII. 

"In those Encyclicals/' said His Holiness, "you 
will find clearly marked out the course of action 
that Catholics must follow in the great social 
movements of the day." Then Pope Pius ex- 

13 



14 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

plained how, in his own Encyclical, on Christian 
Democracy, published in 1903, I should find, 
taken from the writings of his predecessor, nineteen 
propositions which laid down the truths that must 
ever be maintained by Catholics in regard to au- 
thority and its origin, the State and its functions, 
the family and its duties, the rights and duties of 
property, capital, and labour. 

So, when the privilege came to give a course 
of Conferences in this Cathedral, I thought I 
could do nothing better than follow up the 
thought and teaching of that great Pontiff, Leo 
XIII, on the various phases of the social move- 
ment, and which Pope Pius X tells us, in his letter 
on Christian Democracy, should be posted up in 
the offices of Catholic organizations, and fre- 
quently read at their meetings. 

And, indeed, to whom are we to turn for light 
and guidance in regard to those far-reaching 
social questions of the time, if not to the Vicar of 
Him who said : "I am the Way, and the Truth, 
and the Life"? 

I know, at once, what the enemies of the Catholic 
Church will say. They will say : " You are going 
to the wrong source for light. The sympathies 
of the Pope are on the side of the capitalist, and 
he takes little, or, at least, no deep interest in the 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 15 

toiling masses.' ' This is a charge made against 
the Papacy; a charge repeated, insisted on, and 
forced upon the labouring man; it is a charge I 
must dispose of at the very outset of these Con- 
ferences. 

What, then, let me ask you, has been the ac- 
tion of the Pope in regard to the bread-winners 
during the past nineteen hundred years, during 
which, as Head of Christ's Church, he has sat in 
the Chair of Peter? This is the question I am 
going to answer to-day. 

Let us, for the moment, assume that the Pope, 
as a rule, has been on the side of those in authority. 
As a matter of fact, he has sometimes even lifted 
his hands in blessing over the autocrat. Auto- 
crats are not much in favour nowadays. We 
have no use for them ; and consequently some of 
us think that the Pope, who blessed autocrats 
in a day gone by, must have sided with them in 
their oppression of the working classes. Noth- 
ing could be further from the truth. 

We must be careful not to judge of mediaeval 
Europe as though it were a present-day civiliza- 
tion. There have been ages in which autocrats 
were not only useful, but in a measure necessary. 
Without them there would have been no govern- 
ment at all, no safety, no asylum for the weak, 



16 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

no protection for the oppressed. There have 
been times, in the dark past, when the one thing 
wanted was a strong hand, an effective rule to 
hold society from crumbling into atoms, and to 
defend the individual from being plundered or 
murdered by his neighbours. Look, for instance, 
at the warring Anglo-Saxons brought out of their 
chaos by the strong hand of the Church-supported 
despot of Wessex. The strong hand may have 
been a cruel hand, but it established order of some 
sort in a day when the poor man sought and craved 
for help of any sort. 

"The feudal lord," says Laf argue, "only holds 
his land and possesses a claim on the labour and 
harvests of his tenants and vassals on condition of 
doing suit and service to his superiors and lending 
aid to his dependents. On accepting the oath of 
fealty and homage the lord engaged to protect 
his vassal against all and sundry by all the means 
at his command ; in return for which support the 
vassal was bound to render military and personal 
service and make certain payments to his lord. 
The latter in his turn, for the sake of protection, 
commended himself to a more puissant feudal lord, 
who himself stood in the relation of vassalage to 
a suzerain, to the king or emperor. 

" All the members of the feudal hierarchy, from 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 17 

the serf upwards to the king or emperor, were 
bound by the ties of reciprocal duties." l Even 
Hillquit, the Socialist, is compelled to acknowledge 
that : " Under the existing conditions of the times 
the class of nobility was, therefore, on the whole a 
socially useful class. " 

And so it came to pass, Popes said gracious 
things to various autocratic kings and domineer- 
ing nobles, who some may think never deserved 
any encouragement at all. But does this ex- 
ceptional action of the Pope mean that his sym- 
pathies were with despotism, or that he approved 
and encouraged the oppression of the wage-earning 
classes ? By no means. 

The Pope has ever been the champion of the 
toiler, the defender of the weak, the advocate of 
the down-trodden, and the poor man's best friend. 
Cardinal Newman has well said that there is no 
one of those who speaks bravely against the Church 
to-day but owes it to the Church that he can speak 
at all. This is particularly true of the wage- 
earner. If any power can be said to have brought 
him into being and given him a social status, that 
power is none other than Christ's Vicar, the Pope 
of Rome. 

This will appear to be an unwarranted state- 

1 " The Evolution of Property." 
c 



18 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ment to those who are not familiar with history, 
or who have been brought up on history written 
by the avowed enemies of the Papacy. Popular 
literature, I grant you, is against me, Protestant 
fiction is against me, and non-Catholic tradition 
is against me, Socialists, of course, are against 
me, for their explanation of all changes in history 
is based upon economic conditions ; but the writ- 
ings of impartial Protestant historians are on my 
side. 

Let me, first of all, recall a few well-supported 
facts, and cite a few fully recognized authorities 
in support of my contention. We need not go 
back to the beginning of the Papacy; it will be 
enough to start with what are called the Dark 
Ages — roughly, the ninth and tenth centuries of 
our Christian era. Alas ! They may indeed be 
called dark, for they recall a period of destruc- 
tion, of desolation, an age almost of despair. It 
was a time when Europe was harried from end 
to end by Northmen, Mohammedans, and Mag- 
yars. The very existence of Christianity, even 
in Europe, seemed to be threatened. The his- 
torian Gibbon, referring to it, has described a 
scene that actually might have been witnessed ; 
England under a Caliph, with Mullahs lecturing in 
the Colleges of Oxford. Scarcely can we call the 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 19 

picture overdrawn. It was one that might have 
been enacted at that famous seat of learning. 

How did Europe save herself ? By the creation 
of a military caste. We call the rule of this caste 
Feudalism. Politically, it worked out as local 
despotism. Against it the workingman was power- 
less and hopeless. In those days the workingman 
had no organization to support him, no press to 
make known his wrongs, no public opinion to which 
to appeal. How could he, helpless, alone, on foot, 
with only a hoe for a weapon, hold his own against 
a mail-clad knight, on horseback, armed with a 
lance ? He had to lie down and crawl under the 
heel of tyranny. But now all this is changed. 

Consider the wage-earner of to-day as a mem- 
ber of a trade-union. Picture him as he stands — 
erect, keen-eyed and keen-witted, attending a con- 
gress as the representative of his fellows. Add 
up, if you will, the strong sanctions that hedge 
him round about ; note the bulwarks that protect 
him. His personal liberty is secured, it is in- 
violate ; the courts of law throw open their doors 
to him, the press is eager to report his words, 
his fellows to a man are at his back ; in a word, 
he is welded into a strong and closely-knit organi- 
zation with his brother workers. I do not, for 
a moment, pretend to say that his position is 



20 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

satisfactory, even now, but he certainly enjoys 
a measure of protection which not the furthest- 
reaching prophetic vision in the Dark Ages could 
have foreseen. 

In the Dark Ages our brother workers were 
without redress when tyrannized over by the 
wealthy. The servant was the creature of his 
master, living in the hollow of his hand. It was 
the rule of the stronger, hard and often pitiless. 

How T could it be otherwise when there were no 
elements of cohesion among the down-trodden 
people, no unifying principle giving them a voice- 
controlling force ? How was liberty, even in its 
most elementary form, to take root in a soil so 
uncompromising as this ? How was Democracy 
to spring out of a social order in which popular 
initiative was an utter impossibility ? 

Yet, incredible as it may seem, we do find, if 
we turn over a few pages of later history, that the 
workingman is practically emancipated and is able 
to stand up and assert himself. He is beginning to 
take an active and intelligent part in the demo- 
cratic government of well-nigh every country in 
Europe. Now, what I want to know is, how was 
this glorious change brought about ? Whence, let 
me ask, came the ideas of liberty and democratic 
government and, more important still, whence 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 21 

came the motive power which gave shape and 
meaning to those ideas, converting them into deeds 
of policy and life ? The answer is this : In those 
days, the Church had the monopoly of ideas, and 
whatever large and luminous ideas rose above the 
horizon sprang from her. 

Observe, that apart from the teaching of the 
monks, even the mail-coated knight would have 
been more ignorant than the dullest of our pres- 
ent-day peers, while the serf could no more have 
launched an idea on the public than a present-day 
Patagonian child could write an editorial for one 
of our great Metropolitan papers. Any luminous 
ideas, which in those days flashed across men's 
minds and were impressed on their lives, came 
from the Church, and were spread abroad like 
sun rays from monastery and cathedral schools, 
which were centres of light and learning. 

A religious education, incomparably superior 
to the mere athleticism of the noble's hall, was 
granted, for the mere asking, to the meanest serf. 
This tremendous fact alone, by proclaiming the 
dignity of the individual, elevated the hopes and 
destinies of the entire race. This humanizing 
machinery of schools and universities, coupled 
with the civilizing propaganda of missionary zeal, 
was the Church's work, and hers alone. 



22 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Why, her very existence amid the people was a 
liberal education, showing as it did that successive 
ages were not sporadic and accidental scenes, but 
continuous and coherent acts of one great and 
marvellous drama. "In dim but magnificent pro- 
cession," as a writer reminds us, "the giant forms 
of empires, on their way to ruin, ceded to her their 
sceptres, bequeathed to her their gifts. Life be- 
came one broad, rejoicing river, whose tributaries, 
once severed, were now united, and whose majestic 
stream, without one break in its continuity, flowed 
on under the common sunlight, from its source 
beneath the throne of God." 

Referring to this period a well-known Anglican 
historian reminds us that, "The Church was the 
one mighty witness for light in an age of darkness, 
for order in an age of lawlessness, for personal 
holiness in an epoch of licentious rage. Amid the 
despotism of kings and the turbulence of aristoc- 
racies, it was an inestimable blessing that there 
should be a power which, by the unarmed majesty 
of simple goodness, made the haughtiest and the 
boldest respect the interests of justice, and tremble 
at the thought of temperance, righteousness, and the 
judgment to come." (Farrar's "Hulsean Lectures 
for 1870," p. 115, Lect. iii, The Victories of Chris- 
tianity.) 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 23 

M. Guizot says: " There can be no doubt 
that the Church struggled resolutely against the 
great vices of the social state, — against slavery, 
for instance ; . . . lastly, she strove by all sorts 
of means to restrain violence and continued war- 
fare in society. Every one knows what was the 
Truce of God, and numerous measures of a similar 
kind, by which the Church struggled against the 
employment of force, and strove to introduce more 
order and gentleness into society. These facts are 
so well known that it is needless for me to enter 
into details. " (" History of Civilization/ ' Lect. vi. 
Cf. Balmez, " European Civilization," Eng. Trans., 
p. 66 et seq.) 

But I pass on to ask whence sprang the fair 
flower of Catholic Democracy which put forth 
its leaves and flowers, and ripened into fruit 
in those days gone by? There was only one soil 
on this planet out of which so fine a thing could 
have sprung. That soil was the soil of the Cath- 
olic Church. Turn to the pages of history and 
recall who were the men who dared to stand up 
in Europe to rebuke the wickedness and injustice 
of tyrants. They were the bishops of the Catho- 
lic Church. Was it not a St. Anselm who spoke 
up fearlessly for the people in those days, as did 
Cardinal Manning, in our own time, in London? 



24 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

When the great St. Thomas of Canterbury rode 
out of Northampton we are told that huge crowds 
escorted him, hung about him lamenting, weep- 
ing, for they saw in him their protector, much as 
in the days of our grandfathers the people of Italy 
flocked to greet an exiled Pope, unharnessed the 
horses from the shafts, and triumphantly drew his 
carriage, shouting themselves hoarse with their 
cries of welcome and love. Who, too, let me ask, 
was it that secured for his people on the other 
side of the ocean the great palladium of their 
liberties, the Magna Charta ? It was a prelate of 
the Catholic Church, Stephen, — Cardinal Lang- 
ton. Catholicism, I tell you, is woven into the 
warp and woof of all our great democratic in- 
stitutions, and it is the bishops of that Church to 
whom Democracy stands eternally indebted. 

Again, Christian teaching itself is preeminently 
democratic. It looks to the life to come. It 
points to a narrow way by which all must go, 
and to the narrow gate by which all alike must 
enter. Observe there is no "Servant's Bell" or 
" Tradesmen's entrance" to the Gate of Heaven. 
There is but one bell for all Christian pilgrims alike 
at the end of life's journey. If in Heaven there 
be any aristocracy at all, it will be the poor, the 
brethren of the reputed Son of the Carpenter of 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 25 

Nazareth. The Church treats all her children 
alike ; — in her ministry she recognizes no class 
distinctions. To say, as most socialist writers do, 
that the Church always sided with the ruling class 
is a libel on history. 

In a day gone by you might have seen knight 
and serf bowing in the same Cathedral to re- 
ceive absolution of the same priest, himself per- 
haps a peasant, as to-day the first of priests, the 
Pope, is a peasant's son. What was seen then is 
witnessed now, when prince and peasant unite in 
the same spiritual exercises. 

Did time permit, it would be pleasant to re- 
call how the sanctuary checked the hand of the 
smiter until the first heat of his anger and re- 
venge had cooled down ; to recall how the people 
gathered to see miracle plays, those moralities 
and mysteries which we are now trying to bring 
back; to recall how the foot-worn, dust-covered 
traveller was asked no questions as to his social 
position when, at nightfall, he sought the shelter 
of a religious house. The religious monastery 
or convent was, as everybody knew full well, 
open to all alike, to young and old, learned and 
unlettered, rich and poor. At Whalley Abbey, 
in England, standing midway between Lancaster 
and Manchester, and rising on the edge of Pendle 



26 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

forest, infested by wolves, the Cistercian monks 
gave free hospitality for three days to any pil- 
grim, whether he was prince, peer, or peasant. 
So freely was this service accepted that two-thirds 
of the monastic revenue was spent on guests. 
Make no mistake : altruism is no discovery of our 
day. It has been the sacred practice of the Catho- 
lic Church, always, all the world over. But in 
those days it was not called altruism, it was called 
Christian charity. 

Speaking of the Catholic Church of those cen- 
turies, the historian Lecky says that she "laid 
the very foundations of modern civilization. Her- 
self the most admirable of all organizations, there 
were formed beneath her influence a vast net- 
work of organizations, political, municipal, and 
social, which supplied a large proportion of the 
materials of almost every modern structure. " 

Let me further support my contention by citing 
yet another non-Catholic, Dr. Cutts, who writes : 
"One reason of the popularity of the mediaeval 
Church was that it had always been the cham- 
pion of the people and the friend of the poor. In 
politics the Church was always on the side of the 
liberties of the people against the tyranny of the 
feudal lords. In the eye of the nobles the labouring 
population were beings of an inferior caste, in the 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 27 

eye of the Law they were chattels ; in the eye of 
the Church they were brethren in Christ, souls to 
be won and trained and fitted for Heaven." 

I might cite a score of other authorities show- 
ing how impossible it is to read the mediaeval 
history of Europe without being convinced that 
it is to the Catholic Church and to her policy 
and teaching, rather than to mere " economic 
developments," that the toiling classes owe their 
emancipation from slavery to serfdom, and from 
serfdom to liberty. 

"But the Church," some one listening to me 
may object, "is not the Pope. What part did the 
Pope play in the creation of the democratic 
spirit?" The Church, indeed, is not the Pope, 
but the Church could never have defended pop- 
ular liberties except in so far as she was in 
union with the Pope. A mere national Church 
can never stand up before a king on behalf of 
popular liberties. But in those days, called the 
Dark Ages, churchmen did stand up to kings 
and nobles precisely because their union with 
the Pope of Rome put into their hands a mighty 
power that transcended and defied all the barriers 
of nationality. 

Had temporal lords in those days been the 
supreme heads of local churches, they would 



28 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

have retained their seats on horseback, while the 
serf would have remained tied to the land, with- 
out champion to plead his cause or to fight his 
battles. Why, the thing is going on under our 
very eyes to-day. What could an Erastian Church, 
like the Russian Church to-day, do, were it to be 
subjected to an attack such as that which is being 
levelled against the Church in France ? Suppose 
that the President of the French Republic had 
been also the head of the French Church, where 
could the Episcopacy of France have drawn 
strength to oppose him and to hold their own, as 
they have done, to their imperishable glory? 
Why did the Catholic Church in my own country 
go under? It was because in the fifteenth cen- 
tury the Church in England was half Erastianized. 
This is why it succumbed to the tyranny of that 
monster of iniquity, the Eighth Henry. England 
was cut off from Rome. Its people could no longer 
appeal to a higher court. It found itself caught 
in a trap and severed from the champion of its 
liberties, the Pope. 

Some of my hearers may have no sympathy 
with Christianity. They may be glad to see the 
Christian Churches Erastianized and made the 
tools of the secular power. I am not contesting 
such an opinion here. I am merely pointing out 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 29 

that had the mediaeval Church been Erastian, 
popular liberties could never have been vindi- 
cated. It was the Pope that set us free. 

The Rev. H. Milman, D.D. (late Dean of St. 
Paul's), writing of a time when anarchy threat- 
ened the whole West of Europe, and had already 
almost enveloped Italy in ruin and destruction, 
says: "Now was the crisis in which the Papacy 
must reawaken its obscured and suspended life. 
It was the only power which lay not entirely and 
absolutely prostrate before the disasters of the 
times — a power which had an inherent strength, 
and might resume its majesty. It was this power 
which was most imperatively required to preserve 
all which was to survive out of the crumbling 
wreck of Roman civilization. To Western Chris- 
tianity was absolutely necessary a centre, standing 
alone, strong in traditionary reverence and in 
acknowledged claims to supremacy. Even the 
perfect organization of the Christian hierarchy 
might in all human probability have fallen to 
pieces in perpetual conflict ; it might have de- 
generated into a half-secular feudal caste, with 
hereditary benefices, more and more entirely sub- 
servient to the civil authority, a priesthood of each 
nation or each tribe, gradually sinking to the in- 
tellectual or religious level of the nation or tribe. 



30 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

On the rise of a power both controlling and con- 
servative hung, humanly speaking, the life and 
death of Christianity — of Christianity as a per- 
manent, aggressive, expansive, and, to a certain 
extent, uniform system. There must be a counter- 
balance to barbaric force, to the unavoidable an- 
archy of Teutonism, with its tribal, or at the ut- 
most national, independence, forming a host of 
small conflicting, antagonistic kingdoms. ... It 
is impossible to conceive what had been the con- 
fusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the 
Middle Ages without the mediaeval Papacy ; and 
of the mediaeval Papacy, the real father is Gregory 
the Great." (Book iii, Ch. vii, Vol. ii, pp. 
100-102.) 

M. Ancillon, a French Calvinist, says: " Dur- 
ing the Middle Ages, when there was no social 
order, the Papacy alone, perhaps, saved Europe 
from utter barbarism. It created bonds of con- 
nection between the most distant nations ; it was 
a common centre, a rallying-point for isolated 
states. It was a supreme tribunal established in 
the midst of universal anarchy; and its decrees 
were sometimes as respectable as they were re- 
spected ; it prevented and arrested the despotism 
of the emperors and diminished the evils of the 
feudal system." ("Tableau des Revolutions du 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 31 

Systeme Politique de FEurope," Vol. i, Introd., 
pp. 133, 157.) 

The German Protestant Church historian, 
Staudlein, says : — 

"The Papacy was productive of many beneficial 
effects. ... It united in one common bond the 
different European nations, furthered their mu- 
tual intercourse, and became a channel for the 
communication of the arts and sciences, and with- 
out it the fine arts, doubtless, would not have at- 
tained to so high a degree of perfection. The 
Papal power restrained political despotism, and 
from the rude multitude kept off many of the vices 
of barbarism." (" Universal Church History," 
Hanover, 1806, p. 203.) 

Herder, another eminent non-Catholic writer, 
says : — 

"It is doubtless true that the Roman hierarchy 
was a necessary power, without which there would 
have been no check upon the untutored nations 
of the Middle Ages. Without it, Europe would 
have fallen under the power of a despot, would 
have become a theatre of interminable conflicts, 
and have been converted into a Mongolian desert." 
(" Ideas on the History of Mankind," Part iv, p. 
303. Cf. p. 194 seq.) 

Here some one may rise up and protest : "It may 



32 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

be true that the Pope was the champion of the 
labouring man before the Reformation, but what 
about the Papacy since that day?" Fearlessly 
Catholics may proclaim that the Popes after the 
Reformation, as well as before it, have been on 
the side of the toiling classes. Already there 
are large numbers of workingmen on whom the 
truth at last is beginning to dawn. 

True, the Reformation and the Revolution 
swept away the old Catholic guilds and the old 
Catholic crafts and confraternities, but they did 
not sweep away the Catholic Church. She stands 
on the rock of ages, and not even Hell itself can pre- 
vail against her. Thanks be to God, old Catholic 
traditions are seen reviving to-day in the Catholic 
social movement in Germany, in France, in Bel- 
gium, in England, and on this vast continent of 
the New World. We are getting the best teaching 
of the Middle Ages reasserted. The social action 
of the Church is being renewed, and nowhere more 
so than on this great continent, where, under the 
stars and stripes, the Catholic Church is impressing 
upon the community the lesson that the better 
the Christian, the better the citizen. 

The movement received new vigour when Pope 
Leo XIII issued his great Encyclical on Labour, 
which rightly may be called the workingman's 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 33 

charter — the Magna Charta of the working 
classes. That Encyclical is being preached all 
the world over. The American Episcopate has 
done much to make it known, and American citi- 
zens not of our faith are beginning to realize 
that the Catholic Church is the promoter of true 
liberty, the friend of Democracy, and the advocate 
of all that is uplifting to the submerged, to the 
oppressed, to the sweated. 

Meantime, there remain many grievances to 
be redressed, terrible chasms to be bridged over, 
hideous cruelties to be stopped, and innumerable 
problems to be solved. I need not review the 
situation. It is reviewed monthly in your peri- 
odicals, weekly in your journals, daily in the 
press. There is no one who has summed up those 
evils more convincingly than Pope Leo XIII in 
that great Encyclical of which I have spoken. 

In it he reminds the employer, in words that 
should never be forgotten, that in the agreements 
entered into by the employer and his workman 
" there is a dictate of nature more imperious and 
more ancient than any bargain between man and 
man, namely, that the remuneration must be 
sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable 
and frugal comfort/ ' " If through necessity or fear 
of a worse evil," adds the Pontiff, "the workman 



34 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

accepts harder conditions because an employer 
or contractor will give him no better, he is made the 
victim of force and injustice." What can be 
clearer, what fairer, what braver or nobler than a 
proclamation such as that ! 

The Supreme Pontiff, looking out from his 
watch-tower on the Vatican hill, sees the terribly 
strained state of things that has been created be- 
tween Capital and Labour by the violation of this 
principle. Like his Divine Master, he has compas- 
sion on the multitude ; on the tens, nay, hundreds 
of thousands of men and women who are grinding 
out their lives in sweated workshops, who are 
huddled together in our great cities and centres 
of industry, who are hidden away in the cellars 
and attics of disease-breeding slums, and who are 
driven by penury and want to join the ever grow- 
ing army of criminals, or at any rate of the dis- 
contented. His Pontiff's heart is moved with pity 
for these enslaved men and women who are our 
brothers and sisters in Christ, and he declares 
in the most solemn manner in which he can make 
his voice heard : "That a remedy must be found, 
and found quickly, for the misery and wretched- 
ness which presses so heavily and unjustly upon 
such vast multitudes." 

But where is that remedy to be found ? Where is 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 35 

the prescription that will go to the root of the evil 
and cure these disorders that are threatening the 
very life of the social organism ? I may say that 
I find only two physicians in the field — two, I 
say — who claim to have a radical cure for the dis- 
ease. The Supreme Pontiff is the one, the Socialist 
Philosopher is the other. 

The remedy pointed out by the Supreme Pon- 
tiff I will explain in a later Conference. I shall 
only say now that the Pope, unlike the Socialist 
Philosopher, has lived in close contact with hu- 
manity for nineteen hundred years, and he may 
be credited with knowing something about the 
ailment, character, and temperament of the patient. 
He has lived on terms of intimacy with the rich 
man no less than with the poor, with the children 
of the forest as well as with the men of great 
cities. No class of society is alien to him. And 
when class struggles have arisen and the poor have 
suffered, and the well-being of society has been 
threatened, the Sovereign Pontiff has never held 
back, has never forgotten his duty; he has come 
forward, he has diagnosed the malady, he has 
prescribed the remedy. 

But too often has his paternal voice been un- 
heeded. People have thought they were wiser 
than he. They wanted to be independent. They 



36 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

fancied they could find a remedy elsewhere. They 
said: "No, not you. We will seek our cure in 
Reformation and Revolution. We will seek a 
readier cure for our ills ; we want measures more 
drastic than you prescribe ; our sickness can yield 
to no treatment of yours." Thus the second con- 
dition of the patient has become worse than the 
first. 

Now, who is the rival physician who claims 
that he had discovered the remedy that will go 
to the root of the evil ? The Socialist is the man. 
But who is the Socialist ? In what school has he 
been trained? What is his knowledge of human 
nature ? How long has he been with us ? What 
credentials does he bring? Who gave him a 
diploma ? What has he done for humanity ? 

This man tells us that the cure which will right 
all our wrongs is to be found on the transference 
to the community of all the instruments of the pro- 
duction and distribution of wealth. We are told 
that this is the essence and sum total of Socialism. 

If Socialism were nothing more than a mere eco- 
nomic proposal, independent not only of religion but 
also of ethics, it would never have been made the 
subject of a series of Conferences in this Cathedral. 
If Socialism were nothing more than what it 
is represented to be in campaign books, and on 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 37 

political platforms at election time, it might, 
indeed, be of interest to the Catholic sociologist, 
but it would not be deserving of the attention 
we are giving it in this sacred edifice. We might 
indeed say that it promised, without proof or 
guarantee, a terrestrial paradise ; — that it involved 
a grievous injustice at the very start in the abo- 
lition of all private capital that is productive, and 
that, beginning with an act of injustice, it could 
scarcely be relied upon as the impartial dispenser 
of justice and right. We might say this and no 
more. But not so now. 

Socialism is an affair of far deeper significance 
than a bare question of economics. It means 
more than the promise of a far-off fanciful Ar- 
cadia. In the words of a leading socialist writer 
of this country, John Spargo, it is "a philosophy 
of human progress, a theory of social evolution." 
"Our theory," wrote Engels, "is not a dogma, but 
the exposition of a process of evolution." "So- 
cialism," argues Spargo, "is the product of eco- 
nomic conditions, not of a theory or a book." The 
Socialism, he tells us, that is alive in the world 
to-day, and upon which the great socialist parties 
of the world are based, is the Socialism of Marx 
and Engels. 

The Socialism, then, that I have to deal with 



38 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

is not, I say, the Socialism of the campaign book 
or of the political platform, but the Socialism 
assiduously spread among the docile working 
classes, the Socialism poured on anxious listeners 
in the Socialist Assembly Room, the Socialism 
scattered over the country in socialist newspapers 
and pamphlets, and in well-advertised editions of 
what are called socialist classics. I have little 
or no interest in Socialism as an abstract principle 
of economy, or as a distant Cooperative Common- 
wealth. My inquiry is about Socialism as a liv- 
ing, moving, energizing concern, with a well- 
organized press and a propaganda that is a marvel 
of enterprise, I may say, of self-sacrifice. And 
the question I have to ask is : Whether, everything 
considered, is it wiser and more ennobling for a 
Christian people to join in the socialist movement, 
or in a movement for the reestablishment of 
Christian principles in the social and industrial life 
of a people? Shall the cry be: "On to Social- 
ism," with all its bravery of statement and blind- 
ness to consequences, or "Back to Christianity/ ' 
that has already proved itself to be the one great 
reforming power in the world? Of one fact we 
may rest assured, that there can be no permanent 
solution of the social and industrial problems 
standing out before us, till Christian principles 



SOCIALISM AND THE PAPACY 39 

come once more to be recognized and followed in 
our relations with one another. For it is nothing 
but the truth to say with a modern writer that 
" although a Christian community might abandon 
its faith it would still find it necessary, if it would 
keep clear of anarchy, to keep faithful to practical 
Christian principles. . . . Ultimately moral re- 
lations will have no significance, certainly no 
moral sanction in the minds of the people 
apart from the Christian principles with which 
they are now, or have been in the past asso- 
ciated." (Kelleher.) We cannot live as those who 
have ever "sat in darkness," and never seen "the 
Great Light." We can never accept the teaching 
enunciated by Hillquit, who, speaking for Social- 
ists, is at pains to remind them that: "Good or 
bad conduct has largely come to mean conduct 
conducive to the welfare and success of their class 
in its struggles for emancipation." From all such 
so-called "codes of morality" let every true Ameri- 
can shake himself free. For they strike at the 
root not only of Christianity, but of religion, nay, 
even of morality itself. 



II 

SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 

I am sometimes asked by letter, and some- 
times by word of mouth, why instead of saying 
kind I say hard things of Socialism. The man 
in the street says to me: "If you want to 
champion the cause of the bread-winner, you 
must do something more than build clubs for 
him, something more than attempt to better his 
condition; you must even do something more 
than busy yourself about his little ones — you 
must identify yourself with his Socialism. Show 
the world that between Catholicism and Socialism 
there can and ought to be a union closer than that 
of wedded life itself, and then you will have ac- 
complished something. " 

These questions from my wage-earning friends 
force me to ask: "Can the Catholic Church, the 
Church par excellence of the toiling classes, — 
have anything in common with Socialism as it is 
to-day; anything on which to establish kindly 
relations with it ? " It might appear at first sight 
that there is much in common between them. 
Both protest against the evils of modern capital- 

40 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 41 

ism, of fierce individualism, of iniquitous com- 
petition, and of colossal wealth in the hands of the 
few. Read the Encyclicals of Leo XIII on the 
great questions of the day, and you will imagine, 
at times, that you are reading passages from a 
socialist manifesto. The working classes are de- 
scribed as having been " surrendered, all iso- 
lated and helpless, to the hard-heartedness of 
employers and the greed of unchecked competi- 
tion." It is pointed out that "a small number of 
very rich men have been able to lay upon the 
teeming masses of the labouring poor a yoke little 
better than that of slavery itself. " 

Or, read again the social programmes issued by 
the Catholics of Germany, or of France, or of 
Belgium, or of England, and you will find that 
many of the reforms there demanded are those 
which figure prominently on socialist programmes. 

But looking at the matter more closely, we find 
that a wide gulf separates the Catholic from the 
Socialist. Both recognize the fact, though en- 
deavours are sometimes made to disguise it. 
Against Socialism, as it is, the Catholic Church has 
resolutely set her face. She will have none of it. 
Socialists, on the other hand, have declared if the 
ideal commonwealth is to be realized, the Catholic 
Church is in the way, and must go. A leading So- 



42 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

cialist in America, once a member of Congress, has 
told his comrades that the last and most power- 
ful foe they will have to meet will be the Church 
of Rome. I believe this to be true. 

This irreconcilable antagonism between Catholic 
and Socialist we shall now examine. But to do so 
we must go outside the field of mere economics. 
For observe well, as I have said, Socialism, in the 
concrete, is not a mere economic proposal. It 
involves a theory of life and a view of the universe 
all its own, from which there is no getting away. 

The first and chief difference between the Catho- 
lic and the Socialist lies precisely in this, that they 
hold conflicting views about the nature of civil 
society, and about the origin and destiny of man. 
This parting of the ways leads on to further prob- 
lems of disagreement. The matter is so impor- 
tant that it demands our closest attention. 

My task to-day will be to lay before you, as 
briefly as may be, the difference between the 
socialistic and the Catholic conception of the 
State. 

Socialism is based upon the materialistic theory of 
evolution. This statement may be repudiated by 
individuals, as also by groups in the socialist body ; 
but the history of Socialism proves my contention 
true. The "Christian Socialist" may protest, 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 43 

the pious Fabian may remonstrate, the Idealist 
may grow indignant ; but for all that, Socialism as 
a living, energizing concern is not a mere economic, 
or politico-economic, principle; it is a growth 
planted deeply in philosophic and religious theo- 
ries. Socialism was born and nurtured in a phi- 
losophy that denies the existence of a personal God, 
and that repudiates all man's duties toward his 
Creator. Socialism still teaches that the one true 
source of our social, political, ethical, and religious 
ideas and beliefs is to be found in the economic 
conditions of production and distribution of ma- 
terial goods. It undertakes to trace materialistic 
evolution from slavery to feudalism, from feudal- 
ism to capitalism, and from capitalism, through 
democracy, to Socialism. 

Hill quit (" Socialism in Theory and Practice ") 
tells his readers that : " The idea of social evolution 
is admirably expressed in the fine phrase of Leib- 
nitz, ' The present is the child of the past, but it is 
the parent of the future.' The great seventeenth- 
century philosopher was not the first to postulate 
and apply to society that doctrine of flux, of con- 
tinuity and unity, which we call evolution. In 
all ages of which record has been preserved to us, 
it has been sporadically, and more or less vaguely, 
expressed. Even savages seem to have dimly 



44 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

perceived it. The saying of the Bechuana chief, 
recorded by the missionary, Casalis, was probably, 
judging by its epigrammatic character, a proverb 
of his people. 'One event is always the son of 
another/ he said — a saying strikingly like that 
of Leibnitz." Hillquit continues: — 

" Since the work of Lyell, Darwin, Wallace, Spen- 
cer, Huxley, Youmans, and their numerous fol- 
lowers — a brilliant school embracing the fore- 
most historians and sociologists of Europe and 
America — the idea of evolution as a universal 
law has made rapid and certain progress. Every- 
thing changes; nothing is immutable or eternal. 
Vfhatever is, whether in geology, astronomy, biol- 
ogy, or sociology, is the result of numberless, in- 
evitable, related changes. Only the law of change 
is changeless. The present is a phase only of a 
great transition process from what was, through 
what is, to what will be." 

"The Marx-Engels theory is an exploration of 
the laws governing this process of evolution in the 
domain of human relations : an attempt to provide 
a key to the hitherto mysterious succession of 
changes in the political, juridical, and social 
relations and institutions of mankind." In the 
judgment of leading Socialists the Cooperative 
Commonwealth is a thing assured. You can no 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 45 

more hope to fight and crush it than the Indian 
brave could hope, with his bow and arrow, with his 
tomahawk and scalping knife, to fight and conquer 
the present-day soldier armed with the weapons 
of modern warfare. "The State/' proclaims Pro- 
fessor Ward, "is a natural product, as much as an 
animal or plant, or as man himself." 

Socialism, acting on its belief in the materialistic 
conception of history, expects to establish a State 
without reference to God. It has no special use for 
God. It ignores Him when it does not deny Him. 

The result of this historical alliance between 
Socialism and atheism is that even individual 
Socialists, who believe in God, have assimilated 
certain views about the nature and functions of so- 
ciety which are ultimately rooted in atheism. They 
have broken with the Catholic tradition. They 
hold opinions about the rights of public authority 
which are, in fact, logical deductions from athe- 
istic principles, and which cannot be held con- 
sistently by those who believe in a personal God. 

I will not here deal with the blatantly anti-reli- 
gious Socialist — with the whole tribe of Blatchfords 
and Baxes who make no secret of their disbelief 
in God and their desire to destroy religion. I will 
confine myself to the Socialists who maintain that 
Socialism has no religious implication whatever. 



46 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Whether they are ingenuous in so doing it is not 
my business to inquire. I merely wish to show 
that their theory of society, implicit and explicit, 
is directly contrary to the Christian theory of 
society, and that it leads to practical views as to 
the nature of liberty, the family, property, and so 
forth, which are distinctly anti-Christian. 

As a sample of this fundamental error of con- 
crete Socialism we may take Mr. Ramsay Mac- 
Donald's " Socialism and Society," a book which 
has gone through several editions. 

We may begin by quoting the author's assurance 
that Socialism is not prejudicial to Christianity 
or family life. 

"Within the scope of this communal organiza- 
tion of industry there will be need for smaller 
groups, such as trade-unions, churches, families. 
Indeed the larger organization will greatly de- 
pend upon the smaller groups for its vitality. As 
the communal organization becomes more efficient, 
the individual will respond with more intelligence 
and more character, and as the individual thus 
responds, these smaller groups will become more 
important. Trade-unionism keeping the com- 
munal organization in the closest touch with the 
needs of the workers; a church attending with 
enthusiastic care to the life, and not merely to the 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 47 

dogma, of Christianity; a family organization 
built upon a sound economic basis and serving, 
in as pure a form as humanity will allow, the spirit- 
ual needs of men and safeguarding at the same 
time the rights of the community, would be pre- 
cious organs in the body communal " (pp. 212- 
213). 

But what is this "body communal " in which the 
Church and the family of the future are to be snugly 
accommodated ? The answer is unhesitating. The 
author sees that "a positive view of the State is 
essential to Socialism," and tells us that " Social- 
ism comes with a clear and scientific idea of the 
aims and method of State activity, and can, there- 
fore, discriminate between mistaken and proper 
methods of State action" (p. 150), In other 
words, as I have already pointed out, Socialism 
involves a certain set of principles about the nature 
of civil society. These principles are not Christian 
principles. What are they? 

"The communal life is as real to him [the Social- 
ist] as the life of an organism built up of many 
living cells" (p. 151). 

Here we have it ! Our old friend, the biological 
analogy, masquerading as a literal reality. Again, 
we read : — 

"The being that lives, that persists, that de- 



48 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

velops, is Society ; the life upon which the individ- 
ual draws, that he himself may have life, liberty, 
and happiness, is the social life. The likeness 
between Society and an organism like the human 
body is complete in so far as Society is the total 
life from which the separate cells draw their 
individual life. Man is man only in Society." 

" There appears to be a cell consciousness dif- 
ferent from the consciousness of the organized 
body with its specialized brain and nervous sys- 
tem; there is a social consciousness with its sen- 
sory and motor system superimposed on the 
individual consciousness ; both together make up 
the individual consciousness " (p. 18). 

"In fact, disguise it from ourselves as we may, 
in our so-called ' practical* moments, every con- 
ception of what morality is — except neurotic 
and erotic whims like those of Nietzsche, or anti- 
quated prescientific notions like those of the 
Charity Organization Society — assumes that the 
individual is embedded organically in his social 
medium, and that, therefore, the individual end 
can be gained only by promoting the social end ; 
that the individual is primarily a cell in the or- 
ganism of Society; that he is not an absolute 
being, but one who develops best in relation to 
other beings and who discovers the true meaning 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 49 

of his ego only when he has discovered the organic 
oneness of Society " (pp. 32-33). 

"The chief difference between the social or- 
ganism and the animal organism is, that whilst 
the latter, in the main, is subject to the slowly 
acting forces expressed in the laws of natural 
evolution, the former is much more largely — 
though not nearly so largely as some people im- 
agine, and in a less and less degree as it becomes 
matured (another organic characteristic) — under 
the sway of the comparatively rapidly moving 
and acting human will. This gives the former 
an elasticity for change which the other does not 
possess. But the type of its organization, the 
relations between its various organs and the mode 
of their functioning — and it is with these alone 
that I have to deal in this book — are biological " 
(p. 37). 

Here we see one of the root fallacies of Social- 
ism. It is held consistently by those Socialists 
who are materialistic evolutionists ; and it is held 
more or less unconsciously by those Socialists 
who undertake to find room for "the Churches' ' 
in the socialist regime. The fallacy consists in 
mistaking a very useful analogy for an identity; 
in resolving a moral life into a physical or physi- 
ological process. 



50 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Hillquit, to quote an American Socialist, assures 
us that : — 

" The historical and uniform course of the evolu- 
tion of the State and its overwhelming importance 
as a factor in human civilization have led the school 
of thinkers, of which Auguste Comte, Saint-Simon, 
and Hegel are the typical representatives, to the 
opposite extreme — the conception of the State 
as an organism. The 'historical' or l organic' 
school sees in the abstract phenomenon of the State 
a concrete and independent being with a life, 
interests, and natural history of its own. To these 
thinkers human society is a social organism very 
much like the biological organism. The social 
institutions are so many of its organs performing 
certain vital functions required for the life and well- 
being of the organism itself, while the individual 
members of society are but its cells. Mr. M. J. 
Novicov, probably the most ingenious exponent 
of the ' organic' school of sociology, carries the 
parallelism between the social organism and the 
biological organism to the point of practical iden- 
tity, and Mr. Benjamin Kidd, criticising the utili- 
tarian motto, 'The greatest happiness of the 
greatest number,' says: 'The greatest good which 
the evolutionary forces operating in society are 
working out is the good of the social organism as 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 51 

a whole. The greatest number in this sense is 
comprised of the members of generations yet un- 
born or unthought of, to whose interests the exist- 
ing individuals are absolutely indifferent. And, in 
the process of social evolution which the race is 
undergoing, it is these latter interests which are 
always in the ascendant.' " 

"In short," Hill quit concludes, "the State is the 
end, the citizen is only the means." 

The biological concept of society by no means 
originated with Socialists. It is found in St. 
Paul ; it has been used by Aristotle, by St. Augus- 
tine, and by St. Thomas. We come upon it even 
in the Encyclical on Labour. But observe a 
Catholic when using the idea always remembers 
that he is dealing, not with a literal fact, but with 
a useful analogy. To accept the idea as more is 
to rob human life of its value, to destroy liberty, 
and to put an end, not merely to revelation, but to 
human personality itself. At best man becomes 
a mere function of the social organism, a muscle 
or nerve centre in the body politic — with no free 
or independent soul of his own. 

The Catholic, I repeat, in using the comparison 
has always realized that he was dealing with an 
analogy, and not with a literal fact. To accept 
this biological idea as an analogy is to get a truer 



52 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

insight into the nature of society; to accept it 
as a literal fact (as does Mr. Ramsay MacDon- 
ald) is sheer nonsense. 

Society is 'a moral organism. What do I mean 
by that? I mean that it resembles a physical 
organism in some important points, and differs 
from it in other points no less important. Hence, 
what is true of a physical organism cannot be 
straightway applied to the organism of society. 

A physical organism seems to be dowered with 
autonomous parts with specific activities, united 
by a superior directing principle. But this is not 
really so, since the vital principle is the only 
source of life. The members exist entirely for 
the body ; their activity is ordained directly for 
the common good. In a moral organism there is 
also autonomy of parts and unity. But the au- 
tonomy of the parts is real and not apparent. 
The individual in society has his own individual 
end, directly given him by God. He is answer- 
able to God alone, not to society except in so far 
as society is delegated with God's authority. The 
individual will be judged not merely as a member 
of society. He is not wholly immersed in society. 
Society exists as we shall show in order to protect 
him and to help him to do certain things which he 
cannot do for himself. 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 53 

To say, then, that we are all members, or limbs, 
or cells of one organism is to use an analogy sup- 
plied by St. Paul, and is helpful so long as we re- 
member we are using an analogy. If we go on 
to argue that we are as wholly dependent on 
society for our life and destiny as the cell is de- 
pendent on the organism, then we are talking 
nonsense. 

Catholics, in their union with the Church as 
well as with the State, realize that they are mem- 
bers of living organisms. As a Catholic, I rec- 
ognize myself to be a member, a cell if you will, 
of that mystical Body of which Christ is the mys- 
tical Head. As a citizen, no less I realize that I 
am also a member of another organized society 
called the State. But not for a moment could I 
even imagine that in consequence of my relation- 
ship to State and Church I had lost my personal 
identity, my personal liberty, and, consequently, 
my personal responsibility. Neither by the 
Church nor by the State have I been swallowed 
up and assimilated. Were I to shake myself free 
altogether of the State, or of the Church, or of 
both, I should not thereby cease to be. My own 
individual life might still pursue an aimless career ; 
indeed I should be answerable to God for having 
cut myself off, by a misuse of liberty lent me, from 



54 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

two institutions, one of which is necessary for the 
development of social life, while without the other, 
what could be man's life spiritual ? 

By all means let us talk of ourselves as cells 
of a living organism called the State, but let us 
know what we are talking about, and let us keep 
clearly before our minds the not unimportant fact 
that we are using the term in a sense not identical 
with, but only analogous to, that in which it is 
used of a human body or of an animal. Man 
does not exist merely as a cell in State organism. 
He is not merely what the eye, the hand, or the 
foot is to a human body. He is complete in him- 
self, and were he to find himself alone on a desert 
island, he would still be, in a very literal sense, a 
self-determining being, responsible after life to 
God for the things done in the body. 

Now, this fundamental misconception of the 
nature of the State as a real, live organism, in 
which man is but a cell, is, as I have said, widely 
diffused among Socialists. It colours their practi- 
cal proposals, and it shapes their views of the indi- 
vidual, of the family, of liberty, and of property. 
This glorification, this apotheosis of the State, 
is not without its entertaining, its humorous side, 
if it were only profitable to dwell on this aspect 
of the case. To judge from socialist writings 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 55 

one would be almost led to think that the new 
State was to be some god in disguise, or at least 
the ideal superman ; whereas, as a matter of fact, 
when cleansed of its war-paint and stripped of its 
stage clothes, it might be found to be only a large 
cooperative body of political office-holders, whose 
symbols of office might be an axe to grind, a purse to 
fill, and whose motto might be : " We are the State." 
The State, even as we know it, is muddlesome 
and meddlesome enough. Under Socialism, into 
what kind of Oriental Despotism would it be per- 
verted ? In a House of Bondage, such as it might 
be, man would have about as much opportunity 
of realizing himself as a slave in the open market. 
He would be, as we have shown, but a cell, a nerve 
centre, a muscle in the all-absorbing State organ- 
ism. He would be free neither to choose his oc- 
cupation nor to determine where to exercise it, 
nor to employ labour on it. Would his house in 
any true sense be his home ? Would his children 
belong to him or to the State ? Would he be free 
to provide for them, or to exercise parental rights 
over them? Would he be a self-determining 
citizen, or, on the contrary, a State-crushed crea- 
ture only, bound up in red tape, labelled with a 
"food ticket," and with a State-appointed occu- 
pation and a State-given destiny ? 



56 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Again, what under Socialism would happen to 
the man who was wronged by the State and sought 
redress ? I do not know that he could appeal to 
law, because all the lawyers would be State offi- 
cials ; I am not sure that he could write to the 
press, because all newspapers would be owned by 
the State. The only thing left him might be 
anonymous letters, the resort of the knave, cow- 
ard, and fool. 

I can picture nothing more deadly dull than 
life as it might be under a socialist State. You 
cannot think of it without there rising up before 
you the vision of some reformatory, with inmates 
garbed in a drab uniform, and moving to and fro 
in dull monotony. 

In spite of what many Socialists tell us, it is 
very difficult to conceive of the socialist State 
except in terms bureaucratic. 

Perhaps Ansley's picture of it may, after all, be 
quite as true as Spargo's. 

Certainly Herbert Spencer, whose philosophy 
so many Socialists adopt, has drawn for us from 
socialist teaching the " Coming Slavery, " which 
cannot be made to fit in with descriptions of the 
Cooperative Commonwealth described by writers 
of the Hillquit school — Bellamy, Morris, Gron- 
lund. "The Socialist State," writes Hillquit 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 57 

(" Socialism in Theory and Practice")) "is not the 
slave-holding state, nor the feudal state, nor the 
state of the bourgeoisie — it is a Socialist State." 

That is about all that can legitimately be said 
about it, for as yet the working plans of this Elysian 
State have not been submitted by Socialists for 
our inspection. Before attempting to do so let 
them determine whether State and municipal 
ownership, on a large scale, has succeeded both 
politically and economically; whether the State- 
owned railways of Europe are superior in every 
respect to the private-owned railways of America. 

As to land, we are assured that no socialist 
commonwealth would oppose its occupation and 
possession by persons " using it in a useful and 
bona fide manner without exploitation." 

The small farmer would not find his acres con- 
fiscated nor his occupation gone under a socialist 
government. Perhaps not, but conditions might 
be laid down, the fulfilment of which would mean 
that all interests in his occupation would be gone. 
What farmer is going to live on his land and culti- 
vate his farm, unless he can employ labour, realize 
his stock, and put by a bit of money for his old 
age, and for those to come after him ? Alas ! 
Socialism betrays, at every step, a plentiful lack 
of knowledge of human nature. 



58 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Let Socialists follow the farmers, with their 
thousands of dollars, going forth yearly to take 
up land in the States and in Canada. Let them 
ask these enterprising folk what is their aim and 
object in so doing. 

They will soon discover that the farmer is not 
to be satisfied with tilling, ploughing, sowing, and 
reaping to secure a mere livelihood. He means 
to put money by, to enjoy the fruits of his labour, 
and to have a bank account with which to set 
up his sons and daughters in positions of respect- 
ability, comfort, and ease. He wants none of 
your Socialism. We must not forget that in treat- 
ing of the socialist State we are dealing with a 
condition of things which, according to the Marx- 
Engels teaching, is, as Kautsky observes, "not the 
product of an arbitrary figment of the brain, but 
a necessary product of economic development. " 
The Cooperative Commonwealth will evolve 
after the socialization of all the means of pro- 
duction and distribution, when all men will be 
fellow-workers, when all men will be contented 
with their lot, when all men will cease to be jealous 
or ambitious, when exploiting will have forever 
ceased, when the gewgaws, baubles, and toys of 
this world will no more enchant and ravish the 
soul with happiness. In a word this Elysian, 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 59 

this Utopian Industrial State will be realized 
when man shall have ceased to be man with a mis- 
sion in this world and with a destiny in the next. 

"It has not yet come," exclaim the sanguine 
followers of Marx and Engels, "but come it will, 
and then the happiness of all will be as the happi- 
ness of each, — supreme, complete, and lifelong." 

Having briefly sketched an outline of the 
socialist State, which we are assured is on its 
way to bring men contentment and peace, let me 
now put before you the Catholic view of the State. 
What is the nature and character of the State ? 
What are its distinctive functions, its rights, and 
its duties ? 

The word " State " has various meanings, two of 
which are to our purpose here. In the wider 
sense of the term a State is simply a community 
of men organized for all purposes of civilized 
social life. Minor organizations are set up for 
subordinate or local interests only. Not so the 
State. A State sums up all the relations of the 
various groups of which it is composed which 
have to do with temporal well-being. I say with 
temporal well-being, for the State has no direct 
concern with man's eternal interests and destiny. 
In this wider sense, then, the word "State" 
simply means not a society, but society itself. 



60 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

But the word "State" is also used in a narrower 
sense, signifying civil authority, as when we speak 
of State interference, State monopoly, obeying the 
State, and so forth. I shall employ the word 
" State " in the restricted sense, with occasional ex- 
cursions only into the wider meaning of the word. 
Let me, first, set forth the Catholic view of the 
State, and then we shall be in a position to con- 
sider in what points the socialist idea is in conflict 
with it. The Catholic view of the State, I need 
scarcely remind you, is based on belief in the exist- 
ence of God. God the Infinite, Eternal, Almighty, 
All-wise, and All-loving Spirit has created man, 
has dowered him with intelligence and free-will, 
and set him on this earth to work out an eternal 
destiny. Man not only belongs to God inalien- 
ably, but depends on God utterly for all that he is 
and has. Nothing belongs so utterly to man 
as man does to God. Man has been sent here 
for a purpose, and that purpose is to carry out 
God's will. This world is his temporal place of 
probation. It is man's drill-ground rather than 
his playroom, his school rather than his home. 
This life is not an end in itself, but a means to 
something better. It is not the play, but the 
rehearsal; not the terminus, but the journey; not 
the landing stage, but the outward voyage. In this 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 61 

life man has to fit himself, with God's help, for his 
eternal destiny. He must reach the goal by the 
exercise of his faculties, but more especially by the 
exercise of his self-determining will. He must 
work out his own salvation. No one else can do 
it for him. He can appoint no deputy. To God, 
and to no one else, man must give an account of 
his stewardship, and at any moment his Master 
may ring him up. 

To pass on. Man, the individual, no matter 
whatever may be said of his supernatural life, is 
not self-sufficient as regards his temporal welfare. 
He must associate himself with others for mutual 
help and support. Man is a social animal, and 
only in society can he live a full and healthy 
human life. Cut off from society, he is stunted 
and warped. His faculties have no opportunity of 
free play, his being cannot expand nor his talents 
unfold. This fact is so generally admitted that 
I need not press the point. Civil society, then, 
has been established by God to supplement in- 
dividual activity, effort, and enterprise. 

"No main tendency," it has been once said, "of 
human nature can have its fulfilment except under 
some social organization. If learning is to flourish 
among men, there must be learned societies; if 
religion, religious societies." Hence, too, civil 



62 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

society, or the State, is needed for the protection 
and promotion of the temporal interests of its 
compound integral parts. 

If you ask me what sort of civil authority does 
God, the Founder of society, demand, I reply that 
God leaves men to determine that for themselves, 
in accordance with their special needs and cir- 
cumstances. There is no distinctive blessing on 
Monarchy any more than there is on Republican- 
ism. All that God commands and nature enjoins 
is government; that is, effective government, 
suited to the needs of the particular people in 
question. Observe, there is no divine right of 
kings, but there is a divine right of a government. 
This or that form of civil authority is the work of 
man. Civil Authority itself is the command of 
God. It is required by nature. It is in every 
legitimate sense of the word natural. 

Here let me call your attention to what con- 
stitutes the range or field of State action. I want 
to make it clear to you what is its " natural" 
sphere of operation, but before answering this 
question, I want to remind you for what purpose 
the State exists, what is its final cause, why pre- 
cisely it has been called into existence. Time 
does not permit me to pause and review the ideas 
of the old-fashioned liberal political economists 






SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 63 

who, influenced by Kant, held that the State had 
merely an external and negative purpose, that it 
existed simply in order to protect men's liberties. 
" Leave men alone,'' it said, "keep other men 
from interfering with them, let each man be free 
to pursue his private interest, and the result will 
be a grand social and economic harmony." This 
view of the State, propounded by Liberalism, is 
the very antithesis of that promulgated by Social- 
ism. The one unduly restricts the action of the 
State, the other unduly exaggerates it. With 
neither can the Church come to terms. Against 
both she utters her protest. Both she em- 
phatically condemns. 

Catholic economists remind us that the State 
exists for the purpose of securing the public 
well-being ; that is to say, the State is summoned 
into being and is set up to secure that complexus 
of conditions which is required in order that all 
the organic members of society may, as far as 
possible, attain to that temporal happiness which 
conduces to their ultimate destiny. 

Briefly, then, the State has two purposes to 
accomplish. It has to protect man's rights ; and 
it has to assist him to do what he cannot do for 
himself, but what, at the same time, he requires 
to do if he is to lead a normal, happy life here on 



64 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

earth, preparing him for a happier one still in 
Heaven. The old-fashioned Liberal says that 
the State has nothing more to do than to protect 
man's legitimate rights. The Socialist says there 
is no limit to what it can and may do ; while the 
Catholic says that the twofold function of the 
State is to protect man, and to assist him to do 
what he ought to do, and yet what without State 
help he cannot do. As St. Thomas, following 
Aristotle, well says, "Men form societies not only 
to live, but to live well." 

The State, then, has for its mission to assist its 
members to realize themselves as civilized members 
of society. The State exists not for the sake of par- 
ticular individuals, not even for particular classes, 
but for the general good of all. The State sup- 
plements the efforts of the individual; it caters 
for the general good. 

But here it may be objected that the State does 
sometimes make special provisions for particular 
classes or groups of individuals. It builds and 
maintains hospitals, wherein the sick have their 
individual wants attended to, and from which the 
healthy are excluded. It boasts of its " garden 
cities," and its city homes where the people and 
the poor find shelter. It supports lunatic asylums 
for which the sane have no use. In a word, the 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 65 

State, as a matter of fact, does a number of things 
for the benefit of particular classes. All this is 
true, and if we keep carefully in our minds the 
distinction to be made between absolute public 
goods and relative public goods, we shall discover 
that the State is fulfilling the function for which 
it was called into being. We must bear in mind 
that the State acts in order to secure public wel- 
fare, either absolutely or relatively. It has no 
direct mission to make each individual or any 
particular family rich, happy, and prosperous ; but 
it helps where a man cannot help himself, pro- 
vided that by so helping the individual it at the 
same time furthers the common interest and tem- 
poral prosperity of the whole community. 

The State protects. About this all are agreed, 
with the exception of anarchists. Observe how 
transcendental this function of the State is. The 
State may rightly do things which no individual 
can rightly do. It may say of parents who are 
grossly neglecting their children: "I will take 
these children away from these particular parents, 
for if I do not, the rights of children to life, liberty, 
and a decent livelihood will be altogether violated. " 
Similarly, the State may interfere in private work- 
shops, where the toilers' lives are in danger by 
insanitary conditions ; where they are crippled by 



66 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

iniquitous hours, or stunted by a sweated wage. 
Again, the State is obviously called upon to settle 
disputes, to repress vice, to take measures to pre- 
vent the commission of crimes, and to protect the 
rights of its citizens. 

But what about the duty of the State to assist 
its citizens ? As I have already pointed out, the 
State must help them to do what they ought to 
do, but what unaided they cannot do. To borrow 
the language of M. Baudrillart, its business is 
not "faire nor laissez faire" but u aider a faire " 

The State exists in order to secure both " nega- 
tively" (by protecting liberties) and " positively " 
(that is, by giving assistance) the general tem- 
poral well-being, and this both absolutely and 
relatively. 

With regard to economic matters the civil 
authority must facilitate the production of wealth, 
and avoid obstacles to such production, for ex- 
ample, excessive taxation. It must stimulate pro- 
duction. It must encourage domestic sanitation, 
hygienic training, technical education, and so forth. 
It is not the function of the State to distribute 
wealth itself, for such wealth it has not directly 
produced. But it may by wise legislation see 
that the distribution of wealth is conducted ac- 
cording to the laws of equity and justice. Nega- 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 67 

tively it is called upon to repress crime against re- 
ligion and morality and to punish public scandals, 
while positively it must support and protect what 
tends to establish, develop, and fortify morals and 
the public exercise of religion. 

Observe, however, that the State is not con- 
cerned directly w T ith the morals and religion of 
individuals. The State is not a religious teacher, 
or a guide in theology, or a direct means to super- 
natural well-being. That belongs to the province 
of the Church. Our law courts are set up, not to 
try sins, but crimes. 

Some one may ask me, What are the absolute 
limits to State authority ? To this I answer, the 
State has no right to interfere directly, save when 
its action is necessary to the general welfare. It 
may not touch private rights. It may not inter- 
fere with private activities, save when the public 
well-being requires it. In other words, it can only 
touch men in so far as they are citizens or mem- 
bers of the State. And let us never forget that 
besides being a member of the State, man is also 
a moral being, with inalienable personal rights 
and an eternal destiny. It falls within the prov- 
ince of the State to stop the individual from sell- 
ing, say, improper pictures or scrofulous literature. 
It may punish him for purveying fraudulent food- 



68 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

stuffs. A thousand other things demanded by 
the public well-being falls within the province 
of the State. The State is set up by man, not 
man by the State. 

It were needless for me to remind you that 
there are some things the State may never presume 
to do. It must not enact laws contrary to the 
laws of our Creator. It may not interfere with 
religious freedom, or with parental rights, unless 
it be to protect, as I have already pointed out, the 
essential rights of children. I might continue, 
but I have said enough to make it clear, that there 
is no taint of Socialism about the principles which 
I have laid down. According to the Catholic 
view, the intervention of the State in the play of 
social activities is never justified by mere utility, 
but by moral necessity only. The State, for in- 
stance, has no right to say, "I will assume the direct 
control of all mines, for then the miners will be 
better off;" but it has a distinct right to say, "I 
will assume the control of industries which are 
sweated, for in no other way can I secure the rights 
of the sweated worker;" in other words, State 
interference is justified only when private initiative 
becomes insufficient. The State must look to the 
well-being of the whole social organism. 

Again, let me insist that if we keep in mind the 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 69 

fact that the State exists chiefly to supplement 
private initiative, then the scope of State inter- 
ference, instead of widening and deepening, should 
on the contrary automatically diminish in pro- 
portion to individual and class initiative and 
enterprise. Why this? Because, thanks to the 
wise supplementing of initiative by the State, in- 
dividuals will become more and more capable of 
looking after themselves and their own interests. 
According to the Catholic view, the State is like 
the parent who teaches her growing child to walk, 
while on the contrary, according to the socialist 
view, the State is like the foolish mother who keeps 
her growing child in a baby carriage, giving it a 
bottle to keep it quiet. 

Such, in brief, is the State as viewed from a 
Catholic standpoint. There are two extremes to 
be avoided — a foolish distrust of State authority, 
calculated to prejudice the common welfare, and 
an exaggerated confidence in State action, which 
would stunt private initiative, check enterprise, 
undermine liberty, and suppress character. 

In conclusion let me ask you never to forget that 
the State, as we understand it, is not the " output 
of mere economic conditions," it is not " the 
dynamic expression of material evolution," but on 
the contrary it is a God -given Institution resting 



70 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

on private property for its material foundation, rest- 
ing on the family for its natural foundation, and 
resting on religion for its spiritual foundation. 

Let no man, let no body of men, dare to attempt 
to undermine these sacred foundations without 
which no State could long endure the ravages of 
time, the passions of men, the shocks of war. Re- 
member ever that the State's first and most im- 
portant duty is that of not meddling, not obstruct- 
ing, not taking over to itself "all income-producing 
property," not hampering the rights, activities, 
labour, and genius of its citizens. It should remem- 
ber that it is set up for no other purpose but to 
protect and to promote the well-being of the whole 
community ; to supply its deficiencies, and to assist 
its many weaknesses. The State exists for man, 
and not man for the State. It is the man and 
not the State that matters ; it is the man and not 
the State that is endowed with a human soul ; it is 
the man and not the State that is called to an 
eternal destiny. The State must never forget 
that prior to it, both in nature and in time, is 
man and the family too, to safeguard whose in- 
terests and to promote whose welfare it has been 
called into existence. That is its destiny. It will 
take the State all its time to discharge its own 
mission, to fulfil its own functions, to do its own 



SOCIALISM AND THE STATE 71 

work, keeping ever steadily before it this never- 
to-be-forgotten truth, that the individual does not 
exist for the State, but the State for the individual. 
These are principles brought out most forcibly and 
developed most beautifully in the great Encyclicals 
of Leo XIII, to which I have so often referred. 

There are two volumes which I should like to 
see in the hands of every Catholic American citi- 
zen — in one hand those Great Encyclicals, in 
the other the Great Constitutions of his country. 
With these two works to guide, uplift, and inspire 
him he would become a power in this New World 
for the propagation of those principles of truth 
and liberty, before which Socialism, with its all- 
absorbing State, would vanish as Darkness before 
Light. 



Ill 

SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 

All noble and lofty human action presupposes 
the influence of some high ideal, for no healthy 
human life can long endure unless sustained by 
some such uplifting force. Hence it comes that 
men who have fulfilled great missions in this 
world have done so under the guidance and stim- 
ulus of an ideal. Take Washington, or Napo- 
leon, or Gordon, or Cecil Rhodes ; they were men 
of action, inspired and actuated each by his own 
overmastering ideal. People who begin by losing 
their ideal end by losing their work. That man 
cannot live by bread alone is true now as always, 
and hence it is truly said that "the policy that 
has no ideal will never vitalize a people." 

Your reading of history will bear out what I 
have said, and you will indorse the words of a 
modern writer who reminds us that: "The only 
test of progress which is to be anything more 
than a mere animal rejoicing over mere animal 
pleasure is the development and spread of some 
spiritual ideal, which will raise into an atmos- 

72 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 73 

phere of effort and distinction the life of ordinary 
man." (" The Heart of the Empire," C. F. G. 
Masterman, p. 30.) 

Even a man of light and leading among So- 
cialists, Keir Hardie, is forced to confess that: " A 
labour party without an ideal cannot last. There 
must be a Holy Grail," he says, " which they are 
ever in search of, which they are making sacrifice 
to reach, and which will inspire and enable men 
and women to do mighty deeds for the advance- 
ment of their cause." (Speech at Belfast, vide 
Hunter, I.e., p. 127.) 

Mr. Keir Hardie, of course, looks to Socialism 
to supply such an ideal. Of its powerlessness to 
do so I shall have something to say presently. 
What I wish to note here is that he too admits the 
need of a high ideal, and as so often happens, even 
with anti-Christians, he borrows his metaphor from 
mediaeval Christianity. It is, indeed, a storehouse 
rich in ideals. 

"The imperious need of to-day," says a writer 
in The Times, "is ideals. At no time has there 
been a greater need for ethical and spiritual ideals 
than now, when on all sides the material things 
of life are apt to assume undue prominence." 

All then agree that man must have an ideal. 
The purpose of this Conference is to show that 



74 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Christianity does, as a matter of fact, offer the one 
satisfactory ideal, by the acceptance of which 
alone modern Democracy can hope to develop 
along sound and healthy lines. Socialism — 
despite its Utopias, its rhetoric, and its appeal 
to the imagination — does not supply such an 
ideal. In Christianity lies the hope of Democracy. 
In Socialism lies its peril, its ruin. 

For Democracy has now to make its choice. 
Will it have living Christianity, or will it have 
living Socialism ? It cannot have both : the 
two ideas are mutually exclusive. And one or 
other it must take, if it is to have any kind of a 
complete ideal, any theory of life. Of course it 
may have partial and departmental ideals of vari- 
ous kinds, such as the ideal of Imperialism, or the 
ideal of Municipal Efficiency, or Physical Culture, 
or Popular Art. But these things do not fill the 
whole canvas of life, or group together all man's 
aspirations into a single dominating aim. They 
cannot enter into every department of man's life, 
or illuminate every phase of human activity, or 
inspire the whole man with enthusiasm. We are 
driven by an instinct of our nature to seek for an 
all-embracing formula, and this, so it would seem 
at the present day, must be either Socialism or 
Christianity. There is no third competitor that 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 75 

I can point to at present in the field. We cannot 
fall back on pure individualism. Man is a social 
being and cannot find his happiness in isolation, 
in a cold-air compartment, apart from the happi- 
ness of others. He must have an inspiring object 
of devotion. He must contribute to the happiness 
of others. The old individualistic philosophy is 
gone, gone forever as a discredited system. So far 
as Socialism has recognized this reassuring truth, 
Socialism deserves our warmest approbation and 
thanks. "In so far as Socialism is a protest 
against extreme individualism, " writes Father 
Cathrein, S.J., " Socialism is perfectly right. " 
(" Socialism," p. 305.) 

But Socialism, like the lady in "Hamlet," "pro- 
tests too much," or rather its protests have led it to 
an exaggeration which is almost as harmful as the 
exaggerated individualism which it attacked and 
defeated so thoroughly. For it's tendency is now 
to lose sight of the claims of the individual al- 
together, to subordinate the individual to a Levia- 
than State, to change him into a bolt, or cog, or 
crank in its machinery. And not only does it over- 
look the individual, but it overlooks the present. 
This is a matter of great importance, and later 
I must be allowed to consider it at some length. 
Socialism in its reaction against a false individual- 



76 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ism has rejected that true individualism which is 
the necessary basis of a sound Democracy. 

Something has been said already about the 
socialistic idea of the State. We have seen that 
to the Socialist the State (or, if you prefer it, the 
Community) is everything, while the individual 
is very little indeed. The Socialist tells me that I 
am a mere cell in an organism, and that my indi- 
viduality is valuable only in so far as it contributes 
to the welfare of the social organism. I have al- 
ready pointed out that this view, based as it is upon 
a misunderstood analogy, robs human life of its 
value, and deprives man both of his sense of per- 
sonal dignity, of his independence of character, and 
of all incentive to self-improvement and self- 
development. 

We are living in a day when we must be on our 
guard against forgetting or ignoring the claims of 
the individual, or to put it in the language of 
Christianity, against forgetting man's immortal 
soul. There is a natural tendency to submerge 
the individual in the social organism, and to lose 
sight of his paramount rights, because of the seem- 
ingly larger claims of the community. Cardinal 
Newman, in a sermon on the Individuality of the 
Soul, has a passage which it will not be out of place 
to quote here. It luminously brings out what I 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 77 

want so much to insist on, that the individual must, 
in the present scheme of things, be given his right 
place — man is a distinct and separate existence, 
not a screw only in complex State machinery. 

" Nothing is more difficult," writes Newman, 
" than to realize that every man has a distinct soul, 
that every one of all the millions who live or have 
lived is as whole and independent a being in himself 
as if there were no one else in the whole world but 
he. To explain what I mean : Do you think that a 
commander of an army realizes it, when he sends 
a body of men on some dangerous service ? I am 
not speaking as if he was wrong in so sending them ; 
I only ask in matter of fact, Does he, think you, 
commonly understand that each of those poor men 
has a soul, a soul as dear to himself, as precious in 
its value as his own ? or, Does he not rather look 
on the body of men collectively, as one mass, as 
parts of a whole, as but the wheels or springs of 
some great machine, to which he assigns the indi- 
viduality, not to each soul that goes to make it 
up ? " 

"This instance/' continues the writer, " will show 
what I mean, and how open we all lie to the remark, 
that we do not understand the doctrine of the 
distinct individuality of the human soul. We 
class men in masses, as we might connect the 



78 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

stones of a building. Consider our common way 
of regarding history, politics, commerce, and the 
like, and you will own that I speak truly. We gen- 
eralize, and lay down laws, and then contemplate 
these creations of our own minds, and act upon and 
towards them as if they were the real things, 
dropping what are more truly such. ■ Take another 
instance : when we talk of national greatness, 
what does it mean ? Why, it really means that a 
certain distinct, definite number of immortal, 
individual beings happen for a few years to be in 
circumstances to act together, and one upon an- 
other, in such a way as to be able to act upon the 
world at large ; as to gain an ascendency over the 
world, to gain power and wealth, and to look like 
one ; as to be talked of and to be looked up to as 
one. They seem for a short time to be some one 
thing ; and we, from our habit of living by sight, 
regard them as one, and drop the notion of their 
being anything else. And when this one dies and 
that one dies, we forget that it is the passage of sep- 
arate immortal beings into an unseen state, that 
the whole which appears is but appearance, and 
that the component parts are the realities. No, 
we think nothing of this : but though fresh and 
fresh men die, and fresh and fresh men are born, 
so that the whole is ever shifting, yet we forget all 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 79 

that drop away, and are insensible to all that are 
added; and we still think that this whole, which 
we call the nation, is one and the same, and that 
the individuals who come and go exist only in it 
and for it, and are but as the grains of a heap or 
the leaves of a tree." 

If we are to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of 
extreme Individualism on the one hand and of 
extreme Collectivism on the other, it is imperative 
for us not to forget the personal equation, the in- 
dividuality, the personality of a human soul. Its 
distinctness, apartness, wholeness in itself — 
Man is man because of his soul, not of his citizen- 
ship. 

But my complaint is not merely that Socialism 
would subordinate man to the State, but that it 
would subordinate him to some future State with 
a very problematical existence, of a very doubtful 
character, and which might prove to be the most 
cruel tyrant that ever ground an individual into 
the dust. Clearly it might be so. Socialism seems 
to lose sight of the fact that true individual- 
ism is a necessary basis of sound Democracy. It 
proposes to subject man to a State, the product of 
socialist fancy, forgetting to recognize man's own 
individuality, personality, and worth. 

"Why care about your own career?" it says 



80 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

to the individual. "Your career is to provide a 
career for those yet to come. Your reward must 
be to labour for generations not yet born." " No 
one," says Bebel, "has a right to consider whether 
he himself, after all his trouble and labour, will 
live to see a fairer epoch of Socialism. Still less 
has he a right to let such a consideration deter 
him from the course on which he has entered." 
(" Woman," Eng. Trans., p. 264.) 

All such idealism as this implies a pitiful dis- 
regard for the constituent elements of human 
nature, and goes to show that Socialists, who make 
a problematical future State man's ideal in life, 
have either smuggled religious sanctions into their 
programmes, or else are insulting the intelligence 
of their audience. 

For a moment note the inconsistency of the 
socialist position. He rails at Christianity for 
"dealing in futures," and deluding the people 
with a "draft on Eternity," yet he himself specu- 
lates in futures of a far less assured character 
than the heaven which even a shoeless child, sell- 
ing the evening paper in a slum, knows to be the 
term of his earthly pilgrimage. 

Socialism insists that the ideal which it lifts 
up to its followers is both scientific and valuable. 
I maintain that it is neither the one nor the other. 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 81 

I have already pointed out how unreasonable 
and misleading is the Socialists' application of 
biological analogies to human society. Such anal- 
ogies have their uses, but when unduly pressed, 
they turn to absurdities. They rob man of his 
identity, of his personal equation, of his rightful 
status among his fellows, converting him into a 
chattel, a wheel, nay, into a mere cog in State 
machinery. Nor is the ideal which it advocates 
valuable. We must never forget that man is an 
end in himself, that he must not be made a mere 
means to the welfare of others. It cannot but 
be pernicious to lift up before him false and debas- 
ing ideals. 

No human ideal can be valuable, can stimulate 
to action, can call forth a man's best energies, 
which denies or ignores the worth of the individual 
man. Democracy, after many years of struggle 
and protest, has banished that pagan principle 
summed up in the words of the poet Lucan, Hu- 
manum paucis vivit genus, — the human race ex- 
ists but for the few. Christianity has taught 
Democracy the wickedness of such a maxim, and 
has helped them to toss it aside. "No, " says the 
Church, "each individual here and now as well as 
hereafter has his value and must be considered. 
He has his personal work and must have his per- 



82 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

sonal reward for its accomplishment. He is an 
end in himself and must never be made a mere 
means to the welfare of others." 

Socialism takes Lucan's maxim and repeats it in 
a no less objectionable form. " Humanum futuris 
vivit genus," — the human race lives for a problem- 
atical future. This is a denial of the worth of the 
individual here and now, which is even more sweep- 
ing than were the principles of the Roman slave- 
owner. He at least held that there were some men 
on earth, however few, who were to be regarded 
as ends in themselves. Somebody, at all events, he 
thought, was getting the advantage of human so- 
ciety. If the many were having a bad time, the 
few, at any rate, were enjoying themselves ; if some 
were being crushed beneath the chariot wheels of 
tyranny and pleasure, others were being borne 
forward to goals of highest human ambition. But 
present-day Socialists, on the contrary, must be 
content with the "wait and see" policy of which 
we have lately heard so much. 

The ideal offered us by Socialism is the Common- 
wealth State with the voice of its comrades for the 
law of its life. The ideal offered us by Chris- 
tianity is a life penetrated and permeated with the 
spirit and the principles of Christ. 

And I say that my first quarrel with Socialism 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 83 

is that it makes too little of the individual and too 
much of the State. It is a sort of deification of the 
State. For the Socialist the State is practically 
everything, while the individual is practically 
nothing at all. I notice that Socialists are told 
by one of their foremost representatives that the 
State is as essential to the individual life as the 
atmosphere, without which man cannot live. 

"The being/' they are told, "that lives, that 
persists, that develops, is society. The life upon 
which the individual draws that he himself may 
have life, liberty, and happiness is the Social 
State." 

What we are to think of this analogy so elab- 
orately drawn out, I have already said in my last 
Conference. We have to put it down, taken liter- 
ally, as sentimental nonsense. It is sheer nonsense 
to speak of the State as if dowered by a vital prin- 
ciple such as exists in a human body. The State 
has been called into being and set up, not to ap- 
propriate but to protect, not to absorb but to 
assist the rights of man. The State is not a per- 
son, in the strict sense of the word, it is a thing 
only, an institution, with its limitations. 

But what, let me ask you, must be the upshot 
of putting before Democracy an ideal which offers 
no immediate satisfaction to man's needs, but only 



84 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the hope of a vague, problematical future ? The 
upshot is bound to be this — a policy of grab. 
Human nature has no patience to wait for joys 
to be realized in some future State about which 
there is no certainty. It demands a present 
instalment of justice ; it will have it at any price, 
even at the price of bloodshed and a Reign of 
Terror. If our people are taught that it is right 
to deprive private owners of their capital, they will 
press for immediate confiscation. They will them- 
selves take the short cut to justice ; it is even now 
becoming hard to hold some of them back. As a 
matter of fact, can we blame them ? If their 
hope lies in a socialistic kingdom, if their paradise 
is to be found somewhere here on earth, the sooner 
that kingdom is realized, the better for them, and 
the sooner they pass into it, the sooner will they 
attain the real human happiness which is their end 
of life. 

In Alaska, where Socialism seems to thrive among 
the miners, very recently I met a miner return- 
ing home from his shift. He had been known 
to me in the north of England, and at that time 
he was a practical and devout Catholic. Mean- 
while he had been got at and had enlisted under the 
red flag. In course of our conversation this com- 
rade told me he had no further use for religion of 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 85 

any kind ; that Socialism was his cult. He had 
made the discovery that until all the instruments of 
production and distribution were socialized there 
could be no hope of heaven, but hell only. He 
assured me that most of his mates were of his mind, 
and were determined to convert the hell made by 
capitalists into a socialist heaven. There was 
none other. In it no class distinction would be 
found, and there would be one sin only, rebellion 
against the sovereign will of the people. He was 
fed up on the grossest of materialism. His hope 
was the socialist State. — It was his ideal, his 
worship, his religion. 

Now for a moment let me point out to you how 
very different from the socialist ideal is the ideal 
of Catholicity. She offers to the individual, no 
matter what his stand on the social ladder, some- 
thing more tangible, more definite, more immedi- 
ate, more worth having than anything dangled 
before the eyes of the comrade Socialist. Taking 
the individual by the hand, the Catholic Church 
says : "I value you. I esteem your own personal 
worth, and I watch with untiring delight your 
success, which is certain if you care to make it so. 
You have a personal equation, a personal life, 
a personal mission. You are dowered with an 
immortal soul, and your destiny is as glorious as it 



86 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

is enduring. To attain your end you must, in 
a word, realize yourself; you must fulfil your 
divine mission. That is what I care about. To 
attain your destiny you must love your fellow-men 
and work for their spiritual and temporal advan- 
tage. Listen to me, and I will show you how to 
make the world a better and a happier place for 
your having been in it. I will teach you your 
duties to your neighbour. You will take your 
place in the great battle between light and dark- 
ness. Your love of Christ will lead you to com- 
bat injustice, to promote charity, to uplift the 
downtrodden, to stamp out sweating, to make 
life possible, and to make penury and misery im- 
possible. And your reward will be, not merely 
the thought that future generations will be happy, 
though it will, indeed, include the thought that 
you have helped to bring true happiness within 
reach of the many. Your reward will be that 
you have done that which you were sent to do, 
and that you have secured your right place in 
the Kingdom where personal merit meets with a 
reward too which shall be personal, though at the 
same time social. You will not have flung yourself 
away for others. No, you will have saved your 
own soul and made the best of even your own self, 
— for yourself and for others. God's grace will 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 87 

be your comfort and your strength in this life. 
His presence and His glory will fill you in the world 
to come. Because you will have done His work 
and fulfilled His designs in you, His word to you 
will be : 'I am thy reward exceeding great.' " 

This is a message that a Christian people can 
understand. This message, and this alone, will 
teach them restraint, will bear them up and on, 
and give them courage. Nay, this message alone 
will make them truly unselfish. And it will be 
a source of real comfort to them when they need 
it most. 

Socialism maybe stimulating enough to the active 
young man who finds a positive physical exhilara- 
tion in making perfervid speeches to appreciative 
audiences. It may attract the men whose ex- 
perience of the world's heartlessness and cruelty 
has made them bitter and discontented. It may 
appeal to University undergraduates who seek for 
what is new, and for what smacks of generosity, 
and creates notoriety; to bored people who are look- 
ing for a fresh sensation with which to whet their 
jaded appetites. But what can it do for broken 
men and women who are preparing to face eternity ? 
What can it do for the strong man smitten down 
by a hopeless and lingering disease? What can 
it do for the woman who is faced with the pros- 



88 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

pect of carrying a poignant sorrow to her grave ? 
What can it do for the thousands of our fellows 
who are without hope in this world ? Small com- 
fort to them to dream of a time when others may 
fare better. They want to feel sure of the strong 
arms of the Everlasting God about them, and to 
know that they, too, are to share with Him His 
triumph over sin and death. They want to feel 
assured that their pains bravely borne, their duty 
manfully done, their failures patiently accepted, are 
not to be the mere condition of some one else's 
temporal happiness (on the Socialist's own showing 
they are often not even as much as this), but on 
the contrary that they are to be the recognized ac- 
complishment of the work which they were sent 
to do, and for which an everlasting personal re- 
ward awaits them. In a word the people, the man 
in the street, and the purveyor of goods, all of us 
want an ideal. He may know it not, but in reality 
man's need is Jesus Christ. 

The true Christian is one who follows Christ and 
the teaching of Christ with a measure of enthusi- 
asm. There is no philosophy of the Academy, 
or of the Porch, or of the Garden which can pre- 
tend to compete with Christ's method of making 
the most of a disciple — of making the bad man 
good, and the good man better. If you want to 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 89 

cultivate not natural virtue merely, but charity and 
chivalry also, you must leave Plato and Socrates, 
Kant and Spencer, and enlist in the service of 
Christ. Philosophy may indeed act as a finger- 
post on the roadway of life, it may indicate to you 
the way to a naturally good, that is, to an unself- 
ish, state of life, but it can do no more. It is 
without equipment to lay hold of your mind and 
heart ; it has no personality by which to capture 
and captivate you, no living, inspiring example 
with which to vitalize and actuate you spiritually. 

What poor humanity stands most in need of, 
I say, is an ideal that will uplift, sustain, and 
vitalize all its senses of body and powers of soul. 
In other words it needs the leadership and the ex- 
ample of one who is more than a chieftain to his 
clan, more than a captain to his troop, more than 
a king to his court, more than a lover to his bride. 
There is one such ideal and one such only, and 
His name is Jesus, the Saviour. 

"It was reserved for Christianity, " writes the 
rationalist historian Lecky, "to present to the 
world life's highest ideal — Jesus Christ, who is 
not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the 
strongest incentive to its practice." Humanity 
to-day wants the mind, the heart, and the will of 
the Master, Jesus Christ. It needs His patience 



90 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

with a Nicodemus, His delicacy with the Samari- 
tan, His sympathy with a Magdalen, His toler- 
ance with the harlot, His forgiveness of a Peter, 
His mercy to a thief; it needs His methods of 
going about doing good; having compassion on 
the multitude; with a mind open to see, with a 
heart open to feel, with a hand open to give. 
Christ, with His principles of justice and charity, 
is the Social Reformer of whom the world stands 
in need to-day. Behold here, then, your ideal, 
your pattern of virtue, and your incentive to 
practise it. 

The immediate end set before you is a life per- 
meated through and through with the spirit of 
Christ, the remote end, union with Him in paradise. 

I shall be told by not a few ardent Socialists 
that the teaching of the Christian Church about 
other-worldliness makes men indifferent about 
securing decent conditions of life for others in 
this present world. The Christian Church, they 
contend, encourages squalor and stagnation, and 
is an obstacle to national prosperity and progress. 
It cares for the self-regarding virtues only, neg- 
lecting all altruistic tendencies. 

Such charges as these would not deserve our 
attention were it not for the wide extent to which 
they prevail in the popular press. The author 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 91 

of that admirable book called "The Key to the 
World's Progress" has, I think, made it clear 
that the Church has been, at least indirectly, a 
most powerful promoter of material civilization, 
and this in three ways. First of all, she has put 
before men ideals which are the condemnation 
of the seven deadly sins, in which are included 
covetousness, sloth, and idleness ; secondly, she 
has taught men the dignity and duty of labor, 
reminding them that "in the dim morning of 
society Labour was up and stirring before Capital 
was awake," placing before them the picture of 
Christ in the workshop at Nazareth ; and thirdly, 
she has been the unfailing upholder of family 
life upon which material civilization and true 
progress depend. 

What more glorious chapter is there in the history 
of the last two thousand years than the record of 
Christian charity? Turn back to the earliest 
ages of the Church and you will find her bishops 
and priests and laymen erecting institutions for 
widows and orphans, captives and debtors, slaves 
and poor. You will find the Church struggling 
to abolish slavery, giving dignity to labour, im- 
proving the condition of the workers, protecting 
the weak and feeble, taking the lead in religious 
and secular education and in all social reform. 



92 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

And her spirit is still active. To take but one 
page of this glorious story, let me point to my fel- 
low-Catholics in England to-day. We are a small 
minority of the nation, — perhaps one in seventeen. 
We have (through no carelessness of our own) far 
more than our proportion of poor. We are 
strangled by the expense, unjustly imposed upon 
us, of paying immense sums for the education of 
our children. In two dioceses alone we have 
spent upwards of a million pounds of our own 
money in building schools, and many thousands 
on their upkeep. Yet in spite of all this we have 
made inconceivable sacrifices, both in money and 
in personal service, on behalf of the poor, the suffer- 
ing, and the afflicted. I would ask my readers 
to turn to that last edition of the " Handbook of 
Catholic Charitable and Social Works" (Catholic 
Truth Society, 69Southwark Bridge Road), where 
they will find a perfectly amazing record of the 
work that has been done in England alone (at the 
cost of God knows how much self-sacrifice) by our 
priests and nuns, our religious orders, our devoted 
laymen and women. They will read of a score of 
homes for the aged poor, of fifty homes for boys and 
girls, nearly as many orphanages, fourteen homes 
for penitents, hospitals for consumptives and for 
the dying, reformatory schools, refuges and rescue 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 93 

societies, shelters and soup-kitchens, — but the list 
is interminable. This work is done by men and 
women who shun publicity and who labour in the 
face of overwhelming difficulties. It is done in 
many cases by men who have given up brilliant 
careers in the world for the sake of doing work like 
this : by delicately nurtured ladies who have put on 
the rough robe and adopted the severe rule of the 
Sisters of Charity or the Nazareth House Nuns in 
order to follow Christ more closely by rendering lov- 
ing service to His poor. I have spoken of the good 
works done by the Catholic Church in England 
only. I might multiply these a hundred fold by 
citing similar works of mercy done in other lands, 
notably in the United States of America. 

I am not now arguing with those who maintain 
that all these duties should be undertaken by 
the State. I am arguing with those who say that 
the Christian ideal makes men selfish and indiffer- 
ent to the wants of their suffering brothers. And 
I say that their contention is a falsehood which 
is abundantly disproved by the facts which I 
have quoted, by others which I might quote. 

And I say, moreover, that Socialism has no such 
record to show us. Where can it point to a similar 
unselfish solicitude for human sufferings ? It has 
spread much bitterness abroad ; it has fostered dis- 



94 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

content. But what has it done to heal the wounds 
of humanity ? What has it done to wipe away its 
tears, to mitigate its pains, to console its death- 
bed? 

"By their works you shall know them." True 
there is need for justice as well as charity. But the 
promoting of social justice is enjoined upon us by 
our Christianity no less than charity; and the 
socialist protest against charity shows quite an 
extraordinary ignorance of the deepest needs of 
human nature. Charity, in the Christian sense of 
the term (and not in the cold, humanitarian sense 
which the word has come to bear in these days), 
will always have its necessary place in the world. 
The world without it, no matter to what perfection 
of material civilization we might attain, would be 
a sorry place to live in, a desert without an oasis, 
a land without sunshine. Democracy knows this 
well enough in its hours of sober reflection; and 
those who endeavour to fill its ears with cheap and 
cowardly gibes against those who have given their 
lives in the service of Christian Charity are doing 
the world but a poor service, while they are giving 
their own cause away. 

But let me turn to another point of contrast 
between the socialistic and the Catholic ideal. 
The Socialist urges that Christianity paralyzes 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 95 

enterprise. On the contrary I answer that it is 
Socialism that paralyzes enterprise and Chris- 
tianity that fosters it. 

Why are men enterprising ? It is because they 
feel that they are taking part in a struggle, with 
the hope of ultimate victory, in a cause which is 
worth fighting for. If any of these conditions be 
absent, men's enterprise will fail them and their 
efforts relax. Before you can get men to work for 
a cause you must convince them that the cause 
is in some sense a "good" one, that their efforts 
will promote it, and that they will have a share in 
its ultimate triumph. 

Now it does not require a very extensive ac- 
quaintance with history to convince us that, in 
modern Europe at any rate, the only source of un- 
flagging enterprise among the people is the Chris- 
tian religion. 

Of unflagging enterprise, observe : and among 
the people. There may indeed be found apart 
from Christianity a feverish and short-lived enter- 
prise among the people, just as, apart from Chris- 
tianity, there may be found unflagging enter- 
prise among the few who have the advantages of 
wealth and leisure, of intellectual interests, of a 
promising career in some field of human endeavour. 
But you will not get unflagging enterprise among 



96 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the people unless they are moulded by the spirit 
of Christianity. 

Why is this? The reason is very simple. A 
wave of prosperity, the opening up of new fields of 
industry, imperialist sentiment, — these may for a 
time occupy the popular imagination and stimu- 
late to action. But we all know how, with the 
supplying of man's material desires, comes the 
growth of fresh desires, of insatiable desires. 
There can be no limit, no ultimate satisfaction 
in this direction. Progress in material improve- 
ment, unbalanced by a corresponding growth of 
character, means an ever growing discontent. 

Material improvements will not of themselves 
improve character. They are rather a test of 
character, a snare to character. The mere pos- 
session of good things does not teach us how to 
use them. It merely multiplies our temptations 
to abuse them. To teach us to be honest, just, 
restrained, unselfish, we must be inspired byt 
motives strongly set in religion. For these we 
must turn to Christianity. Socialism does not 
even pretend to supply them. Like the wisest 
human philosophy it finds such a task entirely 
beyond its reach. So it falls back on the comfort- 
able assumption (which is dead in the teeth of 
history and common sense) that when people are 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 97 

all made comfortable, they will be freed from their 
passions, they will become upright, noble, good. 

This reassuring doctrine does not find much 
support in fact. Experience does not go to show 
that people become better in the measure in which 
they become richer. As a matter of fact they do 
not even become kindlier, gentler, or more sym- 
pathetic with those they have left behind. Where 
wealth accumulates, says the poet, men decay. 
If you want to come across refinement, content, and 
buoyant hope, you must leave the palaces of 
pleasure and the mansions wherein is found " idle- 
ness and fulness of bread, " and pass out into the 
homestead of the Breton, or the chalet of the 
Tyrolese, or into a cabin in Connemara ; there if 
your eyes are open, they will fill with tears to see the 
spiritual wealth and rare beauty of those children 
of God who have none of the prizes of this life, 
none of its luxuries, and not much of its necessaries. 
One day as I stood talking to my friend Bridget 
Joyce in the far West of Catholic Ireland, a smart 
motor whistled past and was soon lost in a cloud 
of dust. 

"Well, Bridget," said I, "and what do you think 
of that ? Do you feel envious of that gallivant- 
ing lady?" 

Turning to me she replied: "Maybe, Father, 



08 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

that when I reach heaven I will give her a start 
and pass her myself, never mind the noise and 
the dust." 

I might multiply incidents so typical of Catholic 
peasantry to whom heaven and the things beyond 
are a much more intense reality than any gewgaws 
so highly prized in this life. Let me give another 
little story proving my point that it is not material 
well-being that is the first necessity for contentment 
in those who recognize that they are the creatures 
of God. Not long ago I called to see a bed-ridden 
mill-hand friend of mine who was being cared for 
by a sister, the wife of a worker in a spinning dis- 
trict in the north of England. To my surprise 
I saw for the first time a seventh child, a crippled 
boy about seven years of age, among her brood 
in the kitchen. Incidentally I discovered that 
besides the bed-ridden sister this crippled urchin 
had been given a home in this workingman's four 
and sixpenny per week cottage. When I expressed 
my enthusiastic appreciation of this surpassing 
kindness and goodness, the woman, who was 
scrubbing her floor, looked up and said: "It's 
nought much to be proud of, Father ; yon cripple 
was spoiling to death where he was, so I thought 
I'd care for him myself, knowing as if God could 
provide for six, He wouldn't let us go short with a 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 99 

seventh." But what need is there of adding to 
this list which might be drawn out to any length, 
to prove that it is not what you have but what 
you are that really matters ! 

The comfortable doctrine that passions fall away 
in proportion as comforts arise is an assumption 
which reminds me of the proclamation of the so- 
called Knowledge School, — that man, by becom- 
ing scientifically wiser, becomes morally better. 
Truth to tell, between the scientific triumphs over 
nature and spiritual victories over self there is no 
necessary relation at all. In the laboratory there 
is to be found nothing to neutralize the poison of 
human passion ; in the observatory nothing to cor- 
rect the aberrations of the soul's light ; in the sur- 
gery nothing to heal the wounds, or to mitigate the 
pains of a broken or aching heart. Scientific cul- 
ture, like material prosperity, has no moral sense. 
It is not from the microscope nor from the magnet, 
nor from the scalpel, nor from the telescope, nor from 
any other scientific instrument that man learns the 
secret of changing his heart and of stimulating the 
pulses of his spiritual life. There is one, and one 
instrument only, that can enlighten the mind, sub- 
due the will, and tame the heart, bringing to the 
eyes compunction for the past, and to the whole 
being resolution for the future, and that instru- 



100 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ment is the Cross of Christ : "Ave, Crux, spes unica" 
The weapons of knowledge may indeed serve to 
make the material world better, but if we want to 
improve the moral world, we must draw its amend- 
ment from the Crucifix. If the Figure on the Cross 
will not appeal and move a would-be-Christian 
people, then nothing will. 

To aim, then, at the improvement of material 
conditions without taking thought for the improve- 
ment of character is, in the long run, to defeat one's 
object. For a time things may go well enough; 
the new interests may keep men occupied and ab- 
sorb their energies. But by degrees their enter- 
prise will become feverish ; they will deteriorate 
in spirit and temper. Social life will become an 
impossibility, for men will come to regard material 
resources as the one aim of life. Society will turn 
into a great game of grab, terminating in results 
of which some of us already see the tokens. Self- 
indulgence, not self-forgetfulness, will then become 
the order of the day. 

"But," objects the Socialist, "you are inconsist- 
ent. You have just been objecting to Socialism 
on the score that it tells men to be unselfish and to 
work for the coming generation. Now you object 
to it on the ground that it leads to self-indulgence." 

I answer that the two charges are perfectly con- 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 101 

sistent. Socialistic principles overlook the indi- 
vidual here and now, and endeavour to base them- 
selves on an unreasonable altruism. Socialistic 
practice, on the other hand, does foster just that 
glorification of material success which, as I have 
said, must end by defeating its own object and 
paralyzing enterprise. 

The rank and file of the men who belong to 
socialist bodies do, as a matter of fact, care little 
about generations to come. They will have the 
good things of life now. They want here and now 
to pass into their Commonwealth, their earthly 
paradise. " Every man standing in practical life, " 
said August Bebel at Erfurt in 1891, " knows that it 
is not by our ultimate goal that we have attracted 
these thousands. Of our ultimate goal they are 
only too ready to say, ' What is the good of our 
working for a goal that we shall perhaps never 
live to see V" 

This is a somewhat startling admission from the 
recognized leader of Socialism in view of his dec- 
laration, already quoted, that such seeking for 
immediate results is deserving of all censure. But 
this admission can be matched by the statements 
of many other socialist writers who have in similar 
fashion given their case away. Listen, for in- 
stance, to Horace Gronland : — 



102 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

"It is to the discontented wage workers that the 
Socialist can appeal with the greatest chance of 
success. . . . The masses of men are never 
moved except by passions, feelings, interests/ ' 
("The Co-operative Commonwealth/ ' p. 184.) 

So the upshot of all these boasted altruistic 
socialist principles is to be an unrestrained rush for 
" the Promised Land." What effort is being made 
to train the people, to give them a sense of respon- 
sibility, to teach them restraint? The socialist 
leader, having enunciated his theory as to the pure 
disinterestedness which all men should practise, 
gives them not the slightest reason for practising 
it, but holds up to them, as the supreme ideal, a 
picture of mere material well-being. He then 
leaves "the discontented wage-earner " to secure 
the carrying out of the plans. To get his self- 
denying ordinance put into execution he appeals to 
"passions, feelings, interests. " 

It is not difficult to foresee what must be the 
result. The carrying on of the socialist State 
would demand a very large measure of altruism. 
This quality, so far from being increased by practi- 
cal socialist propaganda of the more thorough- 
going type, is being rapidly diminished. Hence 
Socialism is fostering a selfishness which would 
make it impossible to carry out their scheme of 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 103 

things for a single day. You cannot grow figs of 
thistles. 

Were Socialism really producing in men the un- 
selfishness and nobility of character without which 
the socialist State could not be got to work, it 
would demand our utmost respect. But, then, it 
might become obvious even to Socialists themselves 
that the socialist State would not be needed. 
Were we good enough for the socialist State, we 
should be good enough to do without it ! But 
the fact is that Socialism is not making men any 
better. It cannot do so as long as it limits its 
horizon to the improvement of material conditions, 
sets up its heaven on earth, and recognizes no 
morality but self-interest and class-hatred. 

Very different are the principles and practice 
of Christ's Church. She begins with no dis- 
paraging remarks about the valuelessness of the 
individual. She tells every man that he is an end 
in himself, that he is of unspeakable worth, that 
he has an immortal soul. No matter what his for- 
tune or his position, by doing his duty he can make 
his life a triumphant success. Yes, he has duties 
to his neighbour, — to his neighbour's soul first, 
and then to his neighbour's body. He must labour 
as a good soldier of Christ, and as a good citizen, to 
remove injustice from the world. He must take 



104 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

his share by legislation, by personal service, by en- 
terprise of every kind, in order to improve those 
conditions of life which reduce his fellow-men to 
abject poverty, disheartening and crushing them 
and making them incapable, morally speaking, of 
living a Christian life. The Christian whose re- 
ligion is a living actuality to him has a perpetual 
stimulus to beneficent activity, a constant spur to 
unselfish enterprise, a lasting motive to works of 
chivalry and charity. Because he believes in a 
life to come, he will help to make this world a better 
place ; because he loves Christ and sees Him in 
all his fellow-men he will serve all men. He will 
value influence and power because they give him 
increased opportunities of doing God's work. He 
will value knowledge and science, literature and 
art, health and culture, both in himself and others, 
because all these things are the reflections of God's 
wisdom and bounty, goodness and beauty. 

He is heir to all the ages and the brother of all 
mankind. His interests extend to all human 
action, for God's interests are everywhere involved. 
Above all he has a permanent motive for enter- 
prise, — and his enterprise will be marked by a 
restraint, a balance, a sureness of direction which 
will make it of inestimable value to the world. 

His enterprise will be unflagging because he is 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 105 

not fighting a losing battle. Socialism has not 
begun to score yet ; the Socialist, who is consistent 
to his principles, has to admit that for all men 
now living life is a ghastly failure. Not so the 
Catholic Church. She is winning her victories 
and gathering in her harvest every day and all 
day long. Every day many hundreds of her 
children meet death under every imaginable cir- 
cumstance, — in youth, in old age ; in poverty, 
in prosperity. But the Church does not pause 
to question what has been their material suc- 
cess in the past. The great question for her 
is not how much they had a year, but how much 
they are going to have for ever. Have their lives 
been a victory for Christ ? Have they done their 
work in the world? Have they fulfilled their 
mission in life? They may have contributed 
some little to the cause of social reform; poor 
things, they had enough to do, it may be, to find 
a bare living for themselves and their little ones. 
They may have been pariahs of society, — " prob- 
lems" in their own persons, inmates of workhouses, 
or dwellers in the slums, or invalids in garrets. 
But their lives were precious in the sight of the 
Eternal Wisdom, and they will reap their reward 
and wear their crowns, — else, indeed, their lives 
were a failure. Cardinal Newman has described 



106 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

their supreme hope with a master hand. It is a 
poor dying factory girl who speaks : — 

"I think if this should be the end of all, and if 
all I have been born for is just to work my heart 
and life away, and to sicken in this dree place, 
with those mill-stones always in my ears, until I 
could scream out for them to stop, and let me have 
a little piece of quiet, and with the fluff filling my 
lungs, until I thirst for one long deep breath of the 
clear air, and my mother gone, and I never able 
to tell her again how I loved her, and of all my 
troubles, I think, if this life is the end, and that 
there is no God to wipe away all tears from all 
eyes, I could go mad." 

I know I shall be told by the followers of modern 
ethics that we ought to do right for right's sake, 
and that to introduce any system of reward or 
payment is stimulating action to a low moral 
plane. These preachers of high spirituality do 
not seem to me to know much about the humanity 
with which I come in contact. Right for right's 
sake is what I call fair-weather ethics. Tell the 
man driven mad by passion, or tell the woman car- 
ried away by emotional feeling, to remember right 
for right's sake, and they will not so much as pause 
to listen to you. They will give you the slip with 
a smile of contempt for you and your silken-thread 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 107 

maxims. Truth to tell, under the burning pressure 
of passion man, and woman no less, needs the 
strong sanction of strong morality. Your un- 
dogmatic lay morality is but a theory ; it cannot 
cope with difficulties, it imparts no loftiness or 
strength of mind. It is at once shattered in the 
stern conflict of good and evil. 

For a moment pause and consider how the hope 
of reward is the great stimulus to human action. 
Among other characteristics which mark off man 
from the lower creatures there is this : that whereas 
they work without any object or end in view, man 
as man always acts for an object, or, as our Lord 
puts it, for a reward. 

The beasts that perish eat, or walk, or toil, or 
sport without any sort of accompanying reflection. 
They live in the moment, and for the moment, 
neither looking before nor after. Theirs is a me- 
chanical action, to which they are moved by in- 
stinct, impulse, or necessity, as the case may be. 

Man, on the contrary, no matter whence his 
origin, no matter whether he be native of a civilized 
land or barbarous, no matter whether lettered or 
ignorant, religious or profane, Christian or heathen, 
always proposes some object to be obtained, or 
some danger to be avoided by his action. So true 
is this, that those actions alone are termed actus 



108 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

humani, human acts, which are inspired by some 
reward or good to be attained, whereas those actions 
which proceed from impulse or necessity are merely 
actus hominis, the actions done by a man, but not 
manly or human actions properly so called. 

Man's reason imposes on him this necessity in 
all he thinks, says, or does — some object to be 
secured. The action itself may be bad, may be 
immoral, may be fraudulent, still he proposes 
some imagined reward to be obtained by it. Men 
do not sin for sin's sake alone. Or the action may 
be in itself indifferent, as walking or riding, or 
painting or drawing, but there is still some object; 
or it may be trivial, a mere exercise of muscle, such 
as rowing or leaping, but yet even then there is 
still an object in view. Or again, it may be good 
in itself, as almsgiving, or praying, feeding or 
nursing the poor, instructing the ignorant. No 
matter what the action is which happens to be en- 
gaging a man's time or attention, if he is a reason- 
able being, he will be moved to do it by the hope 
of some reward unless it be a pure love-act. 

This reward may be near or remote, it may be 
attainable or unattainable, it may be good or bad, 
earthly, temporal, sordid; or heavenly, eternal, 
and divine ; whichever it is, it never ceases to 
inspire and actuate the work done. 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 109 

Now let us consider for a moment what it is 
that determines in any particular case the reward 
a man proposes as his object. 

It is nothing without, outside of man, for nothing 
can touch and force a man's will. You may phys- 
ically force a man's limbs. The martyrs were 
often, by brute force, compelled to offer fire and 
water to the false gods of the heathen; their 
bodies were thrown to wild beasts ; but their wills 
could not be forced. Not even God Almighty 
forces a reluctant will. For He has imposed a law 
on Himself, He has given to every man a free will, 
a will unfettered, and in the hands of man are life 
and death. In his own choice is the object for 
which he will contrive and labour in the sweat of 
his brow. If he toils for a reward from God, he 
shall receive one " exceeding great" ; if he labours 
for a reward from men, he will secure one scarcely 
worth having. 

Once more I ask : Does experience go to show 
that the higher a man mounts the social ladder, 
the stronger becomes his attachment to his fellows 
left below ? The prosperous man in the city, even 
more than his poor brother in a slum, needs the 
uplifting force of a great ideal to save him from 
becoming self-centred. 

Behold, then, the two rival ideals presented to 



110 SOCIALISM AXD CHRISTIANITY 

you by Socialism and Christianity. The former 
regards this life as an end in itself ; the latter 
recognizes it as a preparation for a life to come. 
Both may agree, to a large extent, in their actual 
programmes of social reforms ; both may help, if 
they will, to make life less bitter to our hewers 
of wood and drawers of water. Both may unite 
to wipe out the slumdoms of our cities, helping 
to make life more human by setting up a better 
material environment. 

We must not forget that the State is a natural 
institution with well-defined rights and duties, 
limited by the prior rights and duties of the family 
and of the individual. Socialism, on the contrary, 
is an economy set up to run counter to the purposes 
for which the State, under the providence of God, 
was instituted. Under Socialism State action, 
instead of being supplementary to individual ac- 
tion, would become a substitute for it. The in- 
dividual would be swallowed up by the State ; 
he would be no more than a cell in its great 
organism. 

This I declare to be an inversion of the natural 
order. Socialism is non-natural if not unnatural. 

For a moment let me develop this contention. 
Socialism would thwart and cripple many of 
those natural desires and aspirations in man which 






SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 111 

should be by all means fostered and developed. 
Socialism would paralyze his freedom. 

The Socialist will resent this and say that 
man is not free at present, that he is broken 
on the wheels of a cruel industrial system, and 
that he never will be set free till Socialism is 
triumphant. 

For all this I repeat that under a socialist re- 
gime man would be a slave, not a free man. Even 
though he had plenty to eat and drink, and where- 
with to be clothed and wherein to find shelter, he 
would in no true sense be free. Free he could not 
be because he would not be master of his own life 
and destiny. Under Socialism no man would 
have the ordering of his own life. He would be 
but a cog in the State machinery, and as much 
under State control as an electric switch in the 
hands of its owner. Man would be a slave. I 
admit that, owing to abuses that have crept into 
the present-day sytem, man is limited in his choice 
of vocation in life. Under Socialism he would 
have little or no choice at all. His own life 
would not be his own. The liberty-loving citizen 
would not be free. He would be crushed out of 
existence. Under Socialism there would be no 
use for anybody who was not bound to the State 
as his supreme Lord and Lawgiver. 



112 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Man would be policed by one supreme public 
authority. His life, his talents, his activities, his 
aims, wishes, and aspirations would all be laid on 
the altar of sacrifice, consecrated to State service. 
How would this suit the American citizen, who 
if there is one thing he almost worships it is his 
freedom and independence ? Why, thousands 
upon thousands in this great Republic have come 
over here from the other side in order to escape 
what Socialism wants to increase and multiply — 
the network of red tape, the snares and naggings 
of officials who, at home, robbed life of its atmos- 
phere of freedom. But not only would man, under 
a socialist State, have no opportunity of ordering 
his own life and exercising his own personal free- 
dom, but under Socialism he would find no scope for 
the expression of that desire of owning productive 
property which is natural to man, all the world over. 
This most legitimate desire, inherent in our race, 
is a natural instinct which would be strangled to 
death in the hands of a socialist Commonwealth. 

Like the Socialist the Christian recognizes the 
modern evils of capitalism, but he would abolish 
these evils not by making control public, but 
by making use common. " Whosoever has re- 
ceived from the divine bounty," says Leo XIII, 
"a large share of temporal blessiogs, whether 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 113 

they be external or corporal, or gifts of the mind, 
has received them . . . that he may employ them 
as the steward of God's Providence for the benefit 
of others.'' 

According to Catholic teaching the State has 
no direct and immediate power over private prop- 
erty, but it may, when public well-being requires 
it, step in and reconcile its mode of acquisition and 
its use with the common good. The right of the 
State is a power of jurisdiction falling directly on 
the individual, indirectly only on property. If the 
old Catholic laws about property and the obliga- 
tions attaching to it were once more brought into 
general practice, we should find ourselves many 
milestones nearer to a solution of our present-day 
social problems. 

Alas, both in principle and in spirit Socialism 
and Christianity differ widely, and are, in fact, 
altogether beyond hope of embracing common 
lines and motives of action. 

Again, I must insist that I am speaking of 
Socialism as a living movement, u asa philosophy 
of human progress and as a theory of social evo- 
lution," and not as an economic proposition only. 
There is nothing anti-Christian in the idea that all 
capital may be owned by the community, if it 
can be lawfully acquired from the individuals 



114 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

and managed for the common good. If Socialists 
could show that all private productive property 
could be made the property of the State without 
the violation of any individual right, and managed 
without danger to man's spiritual or temporal 
welfare, there are many earnest Catholics who 
might join hands with them on the question of 
common ownership. But this is not the question 
I am discussing. It is Socialism as a going con- 
cern, as a practical movement, as an energetic 
propaganda, as an actual energizing enterprise, 
as a new ethical view of life and morality that I 
am considering. 

And I say that historically its cause is inex- 
tricably bound up with anti-Christian postulates ; 
its ideal is the State, and it worships the State as 
its maker, as its god. 

Which of the two ideals, let me ask you, will 
satisfy the deepest needs of Democracy? Which 
of the two ideals I have presented to you, Christ 
or the State, will help to make men less discon- 
tented, and more humane ; which will teach men 
to become pure, and brave, and true, loyal in life 
and death, just and merciful, generous and chiv- 
alrous ; in a word, which will inspire them to be 
saviours to their fellows and to society? Which 
of these two cries must it be : "On to Socialism," 






SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 115 

or "Back to Christ' ' ? Choose between the two; 
it is a choice between life and death. 

Remember, Socialism is a secularist ideal. It 
was born in secularism; it has been matured in 
secularism, and it remains and must continue to 
remain in secularism, if it is to be true to itself. 
Its horizon rests on the rim of this world. Were 
it put forward, as I have said, as a mere contribu- 
tion to economics, we might not expect it to make 
explicit mention of a life to come, but because it 
is put forward, as a theory of life and as an all- 
embracing ideal, it must be pronounced to be a 
theory as dangerous as it is insidious. 

Man cannot live on iced sodas and whipped 
cream. He needs religion, and society cannot en- 
dure without religion. Even Herbert Spencer, the 
modern-day philosopher, at the end of his life 
was forced to admit that religion is the very stuff 
of life, that it is necessary for all healthy and 
natural well-being, that it must ever be a factor 
in the development of a people. The fact is, 
as the poet puts it: "Religion is all or noth- 
ing." 

An ideal, I repeat, every man must have before 
him. The ideal that has been before the Chris- 
tian world for two thousand years is Christ. 

Let Democracy rally round Him closer than ever. 



116 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

As in the past He broke its chains of slavery, as 
in the past He proclaimed that the middle term 
between individualism and collectivism is divine 
altruism, so does He continue to preach: "Love 
one another as I have loved you." If there are 
Socialists who tell me that Christianity has al- 
ready been tried and found wanting, with all the 
vehemence of my soul I deny it ; and from this 
pulpit I declare before the world that it is not 
Christianity that has failed, but, on the contrary, 
it is the plentiful lack of Christianity in those 
calling themselves Christians which is at the root 
of our present anarchy and social misery and 
slavery. What to-day is wanted is not less but 
more of the Christianity which renewed the face 
of the earth when it was in a worse plight than it 
is to-day. The social organism needs to be re- 
vitalized by the Christ-Spirit. 

The rivalry between Capital and Labour, if the 
teachings of Christ were followed, would be a 
rivalry of service, as in reality the true measure 
of Christian greatness must be interpreted in 
terms of service both to God and our neighbour. 
If only we could keep before our minds and draw 
into our hearts the all-embracing principles of 
Christ's Christianity, if only we were actuated by 
His motives, we should find that the solution of 



SOCIALISM AND THE INDIVIDUAL 117 

the economic problems before us to-day begins 
not with the reform of society, but with the re- 
form of the individual. 

I repeat, the greatest social Reformer the world 
has yet seen was Christ Himself, and it was to the 
individual He appealed when He came to redeem 
the race. His language was : "If thou wilt come 
after Me," "If thou wilt be perfect," "If thou wilt 
enter into eternal life." It was to the individual 
He addressed Himself; it was through the in- 
dividual that He would restore fallen humanity; 
and it is with the individual we, too, must begin 
if we would associate ourselves with Him in the 
fruitful, if toilsome, work of Social Reformation. 

Let us start this work in our own homes, and 
carry it forward into our own street, into our own 
State, till at length this Great Republic shall be- 
come renewed and revitalized with the spirit of 
Him who is still our Ideal, our Inspirer as well as 
our Redeemer. 



IV 

SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 

There is no more beautiful creation on earth 
than the Christian family as it has been lived for 
nearly two thousand years in the well-ordered 
Christian home. Home ! What sweet and sa- 
cred memories does that word recall to us; what 
hours of sunshine, peace, and joy it brings back 
to our lives, checkered too often by suffering and 
shadowed by grief! But home is a name that 
stands for something more than the roof tree of 
a family circle, it rises before us as a pillar of the 
State, as its strongest and noblest support. 

To interfere, then, with the sanctions of married 
life, to attempt to shift its centre of gravity, or 
to dare loosen its strong human ties, means an 
attack upon the stability of the State itself, and is 
a menace to the foundation upon which it rests. 

In this Conference I shall, first of all, remind 
you of what is the teaching of the Catholic Church 
with regard to marriage and the family, and I 
shall then go on to point out in what the teach- 
ing of Socialism differs from it. What we want 

118 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 119 

to discover is this : Can their views be made to 
agree, or are they utterly and hopelessly irrecon- 
cilable? These are questions which demand our 
closest attention, for we are going to test the 
actual foundations upon which this Great Re- 
public depends for its stability, unity, and strength. 

We know without consulting the first chapter 
of Genesis, or appealing to tradition, that God 
made the family. We infer it because the family 
is "the prerequisite of production, the ordinary 
unit of enjoyment, the foundation of national 
welfare and greatness, and the principal source, 
in the natural order, both of virtue and happi- 
ness." (C. S. Devas, " Political Economy.") 

By the family I mean a compound society made 
up of two elementary societies, the conjugal and 
the parental. The former is the lasting union of 
a man and a woman for the purpose of propagating 
and educating their kind. The latter is the last- 
ing union of parents and offspring for the purpose 
of education. The essential qualities of the fam- 
ily are thus summed up by a recent writer : — 

"The object of conjugal society or marriage 
requires its indissolubility; the equal personal 
dignity of its members postulates their equality 
in essential rights ; the nature of their union im- 
plies mutual love, friendship, and faithfulness; 



120 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the unity and harmony of action necessary for the 
achievement of the common end demands obe- 
dience of the wife to the husband, not like that of 
a slave to the master, but rather like that of a 
mate to a friend and of a member to the head. 

" Parents are under the strict obligation, laid 
on them directly by the Author of nature, to 
impart to their children physical, intellectual, and 
moral education, and to devote their entire energy 
to the accomplishment of this task ; but they are 
at the same time clothed with sacred and invio- 
lable authority over them. " (Ming, " The Morality 
of Modern Socialism," pp. 152-153.) 

What has the Catholic Church done for this 
natural institution, the family? 

She has raised it into a higher plane. It was 
God-given from the beginning. The Catholic 
Church has made it God-like, — a picture of 
God. The marriage bond has become the authen- 
tic symbol of the union between Christ and His 
Church. It was a contract ; it has become a 
sacrament, and a " great Sacrament." Let us 
go into this aspect of the question a little more 
fully. It will help to show how Catholic and 
socialist views of the family are irreconcilable. 

In bridegroom and bride the Catholic Church 
sees not merely the prospective father and mother 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 121 

of a family that shall rise up to call them blessed, 
but generation following generation, each charged 
with a mission and deputed to a work for the good 
of Church and State. 

Not without reason does St. Paul, as he con- 
templates the grandeur of Christian marriage, 
exclaim : "This is a great mystery/' a mysterious 
religious rite, a great Sacrament. Originally a 
divine institution, marriage has been raised by 
Jesus Christ into a sacramental union. 

Of all the seven sacraments, matrimony is the 
only one in which, not the priest, but the contract- 
ing parties themselves are the officiating ministers. 

Not only does the Christian dispensation con- 
vert the natural into a religious contract, but it 
raises those entering into it to a sacramental state 
of life. Truly "It is a great sacrament." Shall 
we not call marriage a sublime state, giving as it 
does to man and wife the claims on never failing 
special graces to meet the special trials inevitable 
to their state ? But the sacred career upon which 
man and woman enter on their wedding-day is 
laden with consequences, not to themselves only, 
but also to the State and to the Christian Church. 
Hence, in the midst of his eulogy of the sacrament 
of matrimony, the Apostle pauses to remind us 
that he is speaking "in Christ and in the Church." 



122 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Never, perhaps, since the letter to the Ephesians 
was written has there been so much reason as now, 
when the birth-rate is decreasing, and the divorce 
list is increasing, and Socialism is developing, to 
emphasize the warning note of the Apostle, who 
would seem to say, the marriage state is, indeed, 
sacred and sublime, nay, a mysterious rite, "a 
great Sacrament"; but for those only whose 
union in some sense symbolizes the alliance be- 
tween Christ and His Church. 

Regarded as a mere social contract it is shorn of 
all beauty and sublimity; it is a market good, 
often an economic asset only. For a moment let 
us lift the eyes of our souls to contemplate the 
Mystic Union referred to by St. Paul, and recog- 
nize the one supreme and absolute standard by 
which to gauge the rightness and sacredness of 
Christian wedded life. 

In Christ and His Church we see a union in 
which three characteristics stand out in boldest 
prominence. It is a union which is indissolubly 
one ; it is a union which is indef ectibly true ; and 
it is a union which is indestructibly good. 

Of His Bride, the Church, Christ, the Bride- 
groom, says, "My perfect one is but one." So 
indissolubly, so intimately is she one with Him that 
she becomes His Body, and He her Head, so that 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 123 

in loving her He loves Himself; while to her He 
communicates His own imperishable life, declar- 
ing, with prophetic word, that no matter what the 
rage of kings, or the malice of men, or the gates 
of hell may devise for her destruction, never shall 
they prevail against her. The union, then, be- 
tween Christ and the Church is indissoluble. 
But more, this Mystic Union is one that is inde- 
fectibly true; true because of the mutual trust 
and confidence subsisting between the divine 
Bridegroom and His Bride. To His Spouse, the 
Church, Christ, her Lord, intrusts without fear 
not only the proclamation of His reign, the pro- 
mulgation of His laws, the teaching of His dog- 
matic code and the guardianship of His moral 
precepts, but also the custody of His reputation, 
of His character, nay, of His divine personality 
itself, knowing she will suffer neither prelate nor 
potentate to tamper with any the least tenet of 
His revealed teaching. So indefectibly true Christ 
knows her to be that He does not hesitate to pro- 
claim: "He that heareth you heareth Me, and 
He that despiseth you despiseth Me." And so, 
the union between Christ and His Church is 
indefectible. Now let us pass from this indissolu- 
ble and indefectible character of Christ's mystic 
marriage with the Church to consider its inde- 



124 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

structible goodness. It is this divine attribute 
of goodness, of imperishable goodness, which most 
of all we admire and praise in the Mystic Wedded 
Life to which I refer. We are told by the poet : — 

'Tis only noble to be good. 

How supremely true are these words ! Apart 
from true sanctity, there is no true nobility. Not 
only is goodness the root, the bloom, and the 
fruit of nobleness, but its very beauty and its 
fragrance. 

Whatever else she may be to those who are with- 
out spiritual insight, to the King's Son the Church 
is " without spot or wrinkle or any such thing"; 
she is holy and beautiful, "without blemish." 
In words such as these does the inspired Apostle 
eulogize the goodness and beauty of Christ's 
mystic Bride. This goodness, inherent in her 
constitution, is, like all goodness, self-diffusive, 
prodigal, prolific. Witness the tender piety of 
her little children, the patience and charitableness 
of her many poor, and the heroic yet attractive 
sympathy of her saints. 

How could she well be else, seeing that to dower 
her with His own divine gifts Christ, her Spouse, 
"delivered Himself up . . . cleansing her by the 
laver of water in the word of life" ? 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 125 

Glance back down the ages and catch sight of 
His beloved one, at His invitation to the sacred 
nuptials, coming forth "as the morning rising, 
fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an 
army set in array." "This is a great Sacrament ; 
but I speak in Christ and in the Church." The 
union between Christ and His Church is indestruc- 
tible. Here, in the picture I have attempted to 
lift up before you, you may see for yourselves what 
are to be the chief features which man and woman 
who become husband and wife must copy into 
their own wedded life. 

To nothing less than this their troth is pledged, 
having already at the altar said each to each, 
"I take thee from this day forward, for better, 
for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and 
in health, till death do us part." So shall it be : — 

By your troth she shall be true, 

Ever true, as wives of yore ; 
And her " Yes " once said to you, 

Shall be true for evermore. 

Married life is thus indissolubly one, infallibly 
true, and indefectibly good — but, "I speak in 
Christ and in His Church." 

The Catholic Church has indeed drawn closer the 
marriage bond, and ennobled conjugal love. 

Look at the various types of the pre-Christian 



126 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

family described by Mr. Devas in his " Studies of 
Family Life." There was much good in them, but 
evil had crept in with the good. The ideal family 
life was first revealed to the world in the cottage 
home at Xazareth. That example has been 
treasured by the Catholic Church and held up 
before the eyes of the world for two thousand years. 
No one can study the mysteries revealed to us in 
that homestead among the highlands of Galilee 
without realizing more fully what the sanctity of 
home life means for the Christian family. 

What has been the result of this study ? To 
answer that question would take me far beyond 
the limits of this Conference. But let me recall 
a few facts. 

Christianity, and Christianity alone, has given 
woman her right position in the family and in 
society. It has honoured womanhood, wifehood, 
and motherhood as they had never been honoured 
before. Some modern writers by misunderstand- 
ing or by misinterpreting decrees of the Council 
of Auxerre, and the discussions at the Council 
of Macon, try to make out that the Catholic Church 
at one time doubted whether women had souls 
at all; and they attempt to support their thesis 
by citing passages from early Christian waiters, 
notably Tertullian, Origen, and St. Jerome. But 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 127 

it is to no purpose. To the Catholic Church and 
to none other, woman must turn when she wants to 
point to the source of her position in Christian so- 
ciety. Christianity will tolerate neither the servil- 
ity nor the frivolity which marks the relation of 
wife to husband in non-Christian civilizations. 
Christianity refuses to regard woman as man's 
drudge, or the sport of his lust. Christian mar- 
riage, as I have pointed out, is a high and holy 
thing, involving obligations of faithfulness and 
mutual honour and service which press on the hus- 
band as well as upon the wife. Christian marriage 
is full of responsibility and exacts a high standard, 
but it is rich in rewards and draws down bless- 
ings upon itself and on the country where it is 
held in honour. 

The popular estimate of the family (writes 
Bishop Westcott) is " an infallible criterion of the 
state of society. Heroes cannot save a country 
where the idea of the family is degraded." 

Needless to say, the Catholic Church has al- 
ways stood for the sacred character of the family, 
nor will she have anything to do with slacken- 
ing the marriage ties knit together so closely by 
God's own hand. 

Fearlessly from this pulpit I proclaim that the 
Church of Christ has rendered inestimable ser- 



128 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

vice to civilization by insisting on the sanctity 
and stability of wedded life. All through the 
ages the Popes, no matter what the lives of some 
few of them may have been, have always shown 
themselves to be inflexible in the matter of Chris- 
tian marriage. A lustful king seeks sanction from 
Rome for his adultery. That sanction is refused. 
Not by a hair's-breadth will Rome swerve, even 
though a king threatens to drag a great nation 
into schism. For no consideration, even of State, 
will Rome permit a reigning sovereign to dismiss 
his lawfully wedded wife. This fact stares out 
upon us Catholics, not only in the land from 
which I come, but I may add in all other climes 
also where the history of England is read. Had 
Pope Clement VII yielded to the pressure brought 
upon him by the Eighth Henry, England to-day 
might still have been Catholic, but the Pope re- 
fused to put asunder what God had joined to- 
gether. The matter lay beyond his authority 
and jurisdiction. 

We are living in a day when in most countries 
the civil law has usurped an authority beyond the 
powers of Christ's own Church, and has de- 
clared marriage to be not a sacred and indis- 
soluble union, but a civil contract only — in some 
States of this Great Republic to be almost as 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 129 

easily unmade as made. This civil law of com- 
plete divorce, I need not remind you, is intrin- 
sically wrong. It is a violation of the revealed 
law of God, and is condemned by the Catholic 
Church. There are, indeed, cases when a Catho- 
lic, who has no intention of attempting a second 
marriage, but is merely wanting to get civil free- 
dom from an adulterous partner, may seek it by 
a sentence of divorce in the civil courts. But 
this is a totally distinct matter from procuring 
divorce with the intention of remarrying. On 
the question of divorce and judicial separation a 
Catholic holds unhesitatingly and tenaciously the 
teaching of the divine Master as interpreted by 
His Church. Accordingly, we maintain to-day, 
in the twentieth century, what was proclaimed in 
the first, that between man and wife there can be 
no divorce till death do them part — no divorce, 
that is to say, with the intention of remarrying. 
Behold here the wording of the Christian law. 
It is uncompromising, absolute, final. 

If examples be cited from history which seem 
to show that the Holy See has known how to 
yield in exceptional cases, even with this divine 
law before its eyes, let me at once say that these 
examples, so freely and so often quoted, are alto- 
gether beside the mark. They are declarations of 



130 [SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

nullity, not of divorce. After investigating the 
facts of the case submitted to it, the ecclesiastical 
court has come to the conclusion that the parties 
were never married at all; in a word, that God 
never joined them together. Besides, it must be 
borne in mind that the words of the sacred text 
referred to are to be understood in their rigorous 
sense of consummated Christian marriage only. 
For grave reasons the Church may dissolve a 
non-consummated marriage, but into this there 
is no time nor need, for the moment, to enter. 

Outside the Church there seems to be a strong 
feeling against legal separation, which has been 
called " divorce without the right to remarry.' ' 
Unquestionably, separation may be a great dan- 
ger to either or both parties concerned. For 
that reason every influence that can be ought to 
be brought to stave off separation. But because 
such separation may be trying to virtue, it does 
not entitle the parties so tried to yield to tempta- 
tion, to defy God's law, and at once to take pro- 
ceedings for divorce with the object of remarry- 
ing. Altogether, we reject the contention that 
the essence of marriage is " sexual faithfulness/' 
which, if violated by either party, begets a right 
for the dissolution of marriage. 

We are told that England, "like other Protes- 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 131 

tant and enlightened countries/' has left the 
Catholic Church behind to follow in this matter 
the United States of America. If my dear coun- 
try wants to switch on and off divorce almost as 
easily as it does its electric light, I for one, with 
all the force of my being, condemn its action not 
only as derogatory to the best interests of the 
community, but still more as constructive treason 
against the majesty of Christ. 

A modern writer has warned us that "if we want 
to make marriage stronger in the affections of the 
people we must make divorce more easily attain- 
able.' ' Are, then, the Catholic people of Catholic 
Ireland, who have no law of divorce, a melancholy 
and miserable community? Is it a fact that 
compared with Irish Catholics our Nonconform- 
ist brethren are all brightness, wit, and humour ? 

Truth to tell, England would do better to learn 
her marriage lesson from Catholic Ireland than 
from the United States of America. During the 
past forty years we have progressed rapidly 
enough without wishing to emulate the practices 
of some of the States in the great and glorious 
Republic of America. The rapid growth in divorce 
proceedings at home during the period referred 
to ought in all conscience to satisfy the wildest 
advocates of divorce. My experience of the 



132 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

working classes, confined not altogether to the 
Catholic community, does not lead me to think 
that they feel very much aggrieved by the law 
as it at present stands. Quarrels between man 
and wife are more readily adjusted among them 
than they are in classes higher up the social 
ladder. They settle their own differences without 
extraneous aid. They accept the inevitable ; as 
a rule, they forgive and forget. Is the commer- 
cial instinct so highly developed in some of us that 
we at once consider it part of our mission, where 
there is no want of divorce, to create it ? What 
England, with most other lands to-day, needs, is 
not what must tend, by breaking up the family, 
to disintegrate her Empire, but on the contrary, 
what most of all she desiderates is what knits 
into closer intimacy the ties of family, that so 
the country may grow for her a race of sons, pure, 
brave, and strong to hold their own against the 
world. " Divorce made easy," "done while you 
wait," will not make for the manliness of any race. 
There is nothing in it with which to stiffen and 
strengthen character. Divorce, with rare excep- 
tion, spells betrayal of troth, surrender of prin- 
ciple, national disaster. 

And now let me pass to speak of the offspring 
of married life. The Church rejects the old pagan 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 133 

view that the child is merely the property of the 
parents ; she holds that the child has received its 
immortal soul directly from God. Yet she also 
rejects the false philosophy which would sever 
the child from its parents, and make it the property 
of the State. Parents and children are closely 
knit together by links of mutual duty and love, 
with which no State may interfere. Again and 
again has the Catholic Church had to protest 
against governments, which, blindly ignorant of 
the true sources of national strength and well- 
being, have endeavoured to weaken family ties 
and assume the duties which properly belong to 
parentage. The one, unchanging Catholic cry 
through the past three decades of years has been 
the plea for parental rights in determining what 
shall be the child's religious education. Upon 
this question the Catholic Church has made her- 
self heard and felt as none other. Pope Leo in 
his Encyclical on the " Condition of Labor," says : 
" Parental authority can be neither abolished nor 
absorbed by the State ; for it has the same source 
as human life itself. The child belongs to the 
father, and is, as it were, the continuation of 
the father's personality; and, speaking strictly, 
the child takes its place in civil society not by its 
own right, but in its quality as a member of the 



134 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

family in which it is born. And for the very- 
reason that 'the child belongs to the father/ 
it is, as St. Thomas of Aquin says, ' before it 
attains the use of free-will, under power and 
charge of its parents.' The Socialists, therefore, 
in setting aside the parent and setting up a State 
supervision, act against natural justice, and break 
into pieces the stability of the family.' ' 

" Every child," says Bebel, "that comes into 
the world, whether male or female, is a welcome 
addition to society; for society beholds in every 
child the continuation of itself and its own fur- 
ther development ; it therefore perceives from the 
very outset the duty, according to its power, to 
provide for the new-born child." The children 
must, therefore, be taken at the earliest possible 
age into the care of the State, and this is the 
Socialist's ideal. All means of education and in- 
struction, even clothing and food, will be supplied 
by the State. The Erfurt platform demands: 
" Secularization of the schools. Compulsory at- 
tendance at the public schools. Instruction, 
use of all means of instruction, and board free of 
charge in all public elementary schools and in 
the higher institutions of learning for such pupils 
of both sexes as, on account of their talents, are 
judged fit for higher studies." The American 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 135 

Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago, 1904, 
advocates, " education of all children up to the 
age of eighteen years, and State and municipal 
aid for books, clothing, and food." 

What does the Socialist propose to teach the 
young American? Loyalty to country, patriot- 
ism? Not so. Peruse the Socialist Primer by 
Nicholas Klein, and sold and distributed in tens 
of thousands, and ask yourselves what type of 
citizen does Socialism undertake to train and 
educate. I will here reproduce one lesson out 
of the many in this primer. 



LESSON XXIV 

Here is a man with a gun ; he is in the troop. 
You see he has a nice suit on. Does he work? 
No, the man with the gun does no work. His work 
is to shoot men who do work. 

Is it nice to shoot men? Would you like to 
shoot a man? 

This man eats, drinks, wears clothes, but he 
does no work. Do you think that this is nice? 
Yes, this is nice for the Fat Man, but bad for the 
Thin, so he owns the man with the gun. When the 
Thin man will have the law on his side, there will 
be no more men with guns. 



136 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Who makes the gun ? The man who works. 

Who makes the nice suit? The man who 
works. 

Who gets shot with the gun? The man who 
works. 

Who gets the bad clothes? The man who 
works. 

Is this right ? No, this is wrong ! 

The man who works should have good clothes, 
and all that is good. 

The man with the gun must go to work, too. 

War must come to an end. War is bad. Peace 
is good. 

Surely, if this is the doctrine of Socialism, and 
nobody can doubt it, then C. S. Devas is right 
when he says: "The sacred union of man and 
woman for mutual help, for educating and sup- 
porting their children, for providing for their 
future welfare, the sense of mutual responsibility 
and care, the true and healthy communism, that 
of the home, the countless cooperative associations 
which each family forms, the thousand ties of 
dependence that are occasion for the display of 
the best qualities of human nature — this realm 
of self-devotion and self-sacrifice — all this be- 
comes unmeaning and impossible where the social- 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 137 

ist State provides for the nourishment and edu- 
cation and technical training and material and 
moral outfit of each child. The moral office 
of parents is gone, the sacred enclosure of home 
is violated, the sacred words father, mother, sis- 
ter, have been degraded to a lower meaning, 
and the next step is to reduce the rearing of 
man under approved physicians and physiologists 
and the latest professors of eugenics, to the 
level of a prize-cattle farm. The Christian 
family and Collectivism are incompatible; their 
antagonism is so rooted that reconciliation is 
impossible. " 

Marriage, let me repeat, is a divine institution, 
raised by the Founder of Christianity to the dig- 
nity of a Sacrament. Catholics who enter this 
sacramental state of life should do so only after 
serious and sacred thought, and when strong in 
their resolve, come what may, to remain faithful 
each to each not till fondness, but till death, do 
them part. 

If only husbands and wives were a little less 
exacting, if only they made more allowance for 
their differences in tastes and in heredity, in tem- 
perament and in character, if instead of expect- 
ing so much more they were to be contented with 
far less each from each; if, in a word, their de- 



138 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

mands upon one another's lives instead of being 
measured by what each wanted from the other 
were to be regulated by what the other could 
give, then in the words of the poet, after years 
of happy wedded life to the wife's whisper, 

"More years have made me love thee more," 

there would be heard the husband's firm reply, 

" There is none I love like thee." 

I shall perhaps be reminded by some Socialist 
that Catholic family life is not without its fail- 
ures, that instances numerous enough might be 
cited to show that there have been, and are, not 
a few serious breakdowns in the homes of families 
calling themselves Catholic. 

Alas ! to my disappointment and shame, I 
know it only too well. But a thousand in- 
stances of infidelity, coupled, if you will, with 
cruelty, do not go to prove that the Christian 
family, as such, is a failure. 

If you insist on reminding me of the failures, 
I must tell you of the causes that have led up to 
them. The Church is not to be blamed for these 
lapses, for these broken vows. It is not her mis- 
sion to coerce man and wife ; she could not, even 
if she would, change them into automatic machin- 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 139 

ery. She knows human nature far too intimately 
to rely upon any such mechanical process for 
regulating life. She will remind you that it is 
not the Christian family, loyal and true to her, 
but the family fallen away from her teaching, 
that has failed. The family that has sold its 
birthright, the family that has betrayed its spir- 
itual mother, the family that has forgotten its 
Christian origin, — that is the family which is the 
failure. And it is a failure because of its lapse 
from Catholic teachers and Catholic principle 
and practice. 

The French Socialist Le Pay and his school 
have established beyond dispute the fact that the 
Christian ideal of the family, as set up by the 
Church, is still in our own time a potent influ- 
ence for good. Where Christianity is strong 
there, he reminds us, family life too is strong. 
"Who," for example, asks a modern writer, 
"has not heard of Ireland and how there a 
vast population have in virtue of their religion 
and by docility to its teaching shown a shining 
example of Christian family life, sins of the flesh 
scarcely being known among them, and reverence 
for parents and dutiful care of their brethren 
being universal. " 

May God bless Ireland and its brave sons 



140 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

and pure daughters for the example they have 
set in this matter to the rest of the Christian 
world. 

But it is not in Catholic Ireland alone that the 
Christian family is to be found in all its vigour, 
love, and beauty. In every land and in every 
section of a Christian community, if you have 
eyes to see, you will discover lofty and holy ex- 
amples of Catholic home life and home practices. 
How often have I not heard both from those high 
up and those low down the social ladder ex- 
clamations such as this : " Whatever good there is 
in me I owe to my home." Nay, when all else 
has failed to appeal to the heartless heart of some 
prodigal, the mere mention of the word "home" 
oftener than not will touch some hidden spring 
in his soul, and he will sink to his knees broken 
and contrite. 

It is a gross and mischievous exaggeration, 
therefore, to say, as many Socialists say, that the 
Christian family has proved a failure. Mr. 
Wells tells us (" New Worlds for Old," p. 125) that 
he has "very grave doubts if the world has ever 
yet held a high percentage of good homes." I 
do not imply for an instant that Mr. Wells seeks to 
destroy the family. On the contrary, he seeks to 
raise it to a higher level. But I do not think that 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 141 

he understands the sound elements of family life 
that are to be found amongst us, and which we 
must make use of if we are to effect a sound and 
lasting social reform. 

Now I agree entirely with Mr. Wells that modern 
conditions of life, especially in our great cities, 
are seriously prejudicial to the integrity of family 
life; so prejudicial as to constitute a disgrace to 
our civilization. No one who has worked among 
the poor can fail to be moved by the appalling 
waste of human life, the misery and squalor, the 
dirt and the disease, the absence of all that can 
be called home for many of our brothers and 
sisters. The spectacle is truly appalling, and 
every man and woman, with a particle of human 
sympathy in their constitution, must absolutely 
lend their aid in remedying this hideous condition 
of affairs. 

It is not surprising that people should grow 
impatient of palliatives before the spectacle of 
such deep-rooted misery. It is not astonishing 
that they should welcome Socialism, which claims 
to be the only means of setting right such a colos- 
sal wrong. But the Catholic Church, with her 
experience so wide and vast and long, precisely 
because she loves the poor will not countenance 
Socialism. She will not countenance it because 



142 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

she knows, better than any man or any body of 
men, how human nature may be built up, how the 
truest welfare of a people may be secured. She 
knows the toiling poor better than any compiler 
of blue books can know them. She knows that 
the regeneration of the Christian family by the 
Christian spirit must be the basis of sound social 
reform. And she knows that Socialism, despite 
the disclaimers and good intentions of some of its 
adherents, does really constitute an attack on the 
Christian family. There is nothing in common 
between the Socialism and the Catholic house- 
hold. 

Divorce is bad enough, race suicide is worse. 
We read in " Social Adjustment," p. 153, that 
" instead of the 100,000,000 descendants of native- 
born population in the States predicted for 1900, 
there were but 41,000,000 in existence. The 
advent of the other 59,000,000 was prevented 
by a conscious restriction of the birth-rate." 
To the question put by Democracy: "How can 
I rise, like the man with the plug-hat ?" came the 
answer of the socialist economist, "Stop having 
children." "The advice," Professor Scott an- 
swers triumphantly, "was followed. The family 
of eight is replaced by the family of two, and 
thus the labourer is enabled to raise his stand- 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 143 

ard of life." The professor continues (pp. 159, 
160): "In all groups of modern society the size of 
the family is being restricted, because of the de- 
mand for quality, rather than quantity, of chil- 
dren." Again, "The amount of income should 
determine the number of children." 

Once more : "Wages must eventually be raised ; 
but while they retain their present relation to 
prices the average family can afford no more than 
three children. In every trade men and women 
are recognizing this fact, and restricting the size of 
their families accordingly." This iniquitous, crim- 
inal state of things from the Christian point of 
view, the professor of Wharton School regards as 
"a great step forward." He thinks it will guar- 
antee, first, that no child will be brought into the 
world who cannot be properly cared for, and sec- 
ondly, that all children brought into life will live 
joyous and useful lives. 

Alas ! "not on bread alone doth man live." 
Christians recognize that lives "joyous" and 
"useful" can never be wrung out of practices 
which convert married life into a state of legal 
prostitution. 

Let me again remind you that one main reason 
of the Church's condemnation of Socialism is that 
it proposes to reorganize, or rather to disorganize, 



144 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the Christian home as we have known it all these 
ages. Socialism, if we study it ethically, we shall 
find to be committed to a set of ideas about 
wedded life and home which I am forced to de- 
scribe as not only foreign, but as repulsive to all 
of us who have been trained in the Old Tradition, 
in the School of Christ. 

The Socialist, who is something more than a 
mere social reformer, cannot well avoid attack- 
ing the institution of the family as we know it. 
It is bred in him to do so, because it is an essen- 
tial constituent of historical Socialism. This, I 
shall proceed to show, is no gratuitous asser- 
tion; it is borne out by a " cloud of witnesses." 
Take the book called "The Origin of the Family," 
and referred to by Socialists as "an intellectual 
treat," a "great socialist classic." In this work 
we are assured that "monogamy was not founded on 
nature, but on economic considerations ; namely, 
the victory of private property over primitive 
and natural collectivism." The author informs 
us that under Socialism marriage will no longer 
be indissoluble. He informs us that marriage is 
moral only so long as love lasts. "The duration," 
he writes, "of an attack of individual sex-love 
varies considerably according to individual dis- 
position, especially in men. A positive cessation 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 145 

of fondness, or its replacement by a new passion- 
ate love, makes a separation a blessing for both 
parties, and society." No passage in that social- 
ist " classic" can, I venture to say, be made to 
fit in with the gospel of Christianity. Again, 
take the Socialist's international text-book on the 
woman question. " Woman" has run through 
more than fifty editions in Germany alone. In 
it are passages such as this : "The satisfaction of 
the sexual impulse is as much a private concern 
of each individual as the satisfaction of any 
other natural impulse. No one is accountable 
to any one else, and no third person has a right 
to interfere. ... If between man and woman 
who have entered into a union incompatibility, 
disappointment, or revulsion should appear, mo- 
rality commands a dissolution of the union which 
has become unnatural, and therefore immoral." 
This " socialist classic," full of passages such as I 
have cited, differs in every line from the Gospel 
of Christ, as all the world can see. Once more, 
in a work written by "the greatest man the so- 
cialist movement has yet claimed in England " and 
entitled "Socialism, Its Growth and Outcome," 
we read that under a socialistic regime "property 
in children would cease to exist, and every infant 
that came into the world would be born into full 



146 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

citizenship and would enjoy all its advantages, 
whatever the conduct of its parents might be. 
Thus a new development of the family would 
take place on the basis, not of a predetermined, 
lifelong business arrangement, to be formally and 
nominally held to, irrespective of circumstances, 
but on mental inclination and affection, an asso- 
ciation terminable at the will of either party." 
This teaching requires no comment from me. 
Lastly, we are told in "Socialism — Positive and 
Negative," a work described as "brilliant, fear- 
less, searching," that "socialist parties do not 
attack Religion, the Family, and the State," but 
the "brilliant author" makes a point of reminding 
us that "Socialist Philosophy proves conclusively 
that the legislation of the positive political and 
economic ideals of Socialism involves the atro- 
phy of Religion, the metamorphosis of the Fam- 
ily, and the suicide of the State," as we under- 
stand it. This quotation speaks for itself. My 
implacable quarrel, then, with Socialism is this — 
that in its recognized classics, in its propaganda, 
in its press, and in its unguarded utterances, it 
propounds and proclaims a gospel about wedded 
and family life altogether subversive of the 
teaching of Christianity. No sane man can give 
himself up to the study of Socialism without 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 147 

coming to the conclusion that, taken as an ethi- 
cal and as an economic theory of life, it is com- 
mitted to doctrines about marriage which it would 
seem must inevitably destroy the home, and so 
undermine the State. Socialism is founded on a 
philosophy of life which makes the indissolubil- 
ity of marriage ridiculous, which makes race 
suicide rational, and makes children the property 
of the State. 

Needless to say, I shall be told by individual 
Socialists that I have entirely misrepresented the 
Socialist's position with regard to marriage, its 
rights and its duties. In answer to this charge 
let me say that I have uttered nothing but what 
I have drawn from their own very much read 
and very highly recommended socialist classics. 
Those works have not been withdrawn. They 
are still being poured forth every day by the 
socialist press. 

Now, I do not wish to do any one an injustice. 
I know full well that there are quite a number of 
Socialists who repudiate the doctrine I have enun- 
ciated, and have publicly acknowledged the neces- 
sity for maintaining the Christian ideal of the 
family. What do they prove? They prove, at 
most, that a number of people calling themselves 
Socialists believe that Socialism would not preju- 



148 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

dice the family. I am ready to give them credit 
for being perfectly sincere in believing this, but 
I am not prepared to believe it myself, for the 
evidence is against them. With regard to this 
matter, let me observe, in the first place, these 
writers who claim that Socialism will not preju- 
dice the family can speak only for themselves. 
They can only mean that they do not desire to 
see the Christian family broken up. They can- 
not speak for Socialism as a whole. They cannot 
bind their fellow-Socialists, for, notice well, So- 
cialism, unlike the Catholic Church, has no living 
and binding authoritative voice. It is a conglom- 
eration of opinions, of sentiments, of activities, 
clustering around an economic proposal, an ille- 
gal scheme. True, there are groups and parties 
and schools, but none of them has any right to 
say to the others: "You are not Socialists. I op- 
pose your views." On the contrary, if I, as a 
Catholic priest, say the Catholic Church forbids 
polygamy, and you ask me for my authority, I 
have an authority to which I can turn and make 
appeal. That authority will come down heavily 
with pains and penalties on me or any other 
Catholic priest or prelate who would venture, 
would dare, to advocate polygamy or free love 
union. But what authority can Wells or Mac- 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 149 

Donald and Company invoke in order to make 
their fellow-Socialists accept their championship 
of the family ? The Socialist brought up on Bax 
will claim to be quite as good a Socialist as 
Wells, and the followers of Morris will not listen 
to MacDonald, and in the event of a socialist 
regime they will endeavour to secure such legisla- 
tion on the subject as accords with their own 
individual views. No one needs to doubt whose 
views in the long run would prevail. Let there 
be no mistake about it, It is the family, as inter- 
preted by Christianity, which actually stands 
in the way of Socialism, and until the Christian 
family is disposed of, Socialism realizes that it can 
make no headway. Like the National Convention 
in Paris, Socialism to-day sees no hope of running 
up its red flag and of keeping it flying so long as 
family life eludes its death grip. Until the Chris- 
tian marriage becomes changed into a civil con- 
tract, and children become State property, Social- 
ism cannot have a free hand, cannot run down 
the Stars and Stripes floating over the White 
House. 

Socialists, instead of finding fault with me for 
quoting from their own recognized authorities, 
would do well first of all to issue an expurgated 
edition of their classics, or else to withdraw them 



150 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

once and for all from the book market, repudi- 
ating as unsocialistic the teachings which they 
unfold and propound. Until Socialism shall have 
shifted its centre of gravity from anti-Christian 
premises, until Socialists shall have publicly re- 
nounced the philosophy of life as formulated by 
the founders of their cult, and until their men of 
light and leading shall have made it clear to us 
that Socialism indorses, upholds, and enforces the 
time-honored traditions of the Christian family 
and the Christian home, we have no alternative 
but to denounce Socialism from pulpit and plat- 
form, in public and private, as a most insidious 
menace to the State which must rest on its own 
God-given foundation, the Home. 

I have done. My one request to you before 
I leave the pulpit is that you will steadily bear 
in mind that, if Socialism meant nothing more 
than an economic system, transferring to the 
State all railways, telegraphs, highroads, gas 
plants, fire brigades, and such like ventures and 
enterprises, the Church neither would want nor 
ought to interfere. Socialism would then be no 
business of hers. She would hold her peace. 
Why, then, does she stand up and raise her voice 
denouncing and condemning Socialism as a men- 
ace to the family ? 



SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY 151 

She does so because she sees that Socialism, 
no matter what it may propose in theory, in 
practice attempts to invade the home, to loosen 
wedded ties, to usurp parental rights, proclaiming 
to man and wife that their plighted troth to be 
in riches and in poverty, in sickness and in health, 
loyal each to each, has a civil binding force only, 
and that the tie between them is not indissoluble. 
The Catholic Church, as the Guardian of Faith, 
and as the accredited Teacher of the Gospel of 
Christ, would be untrue to her divine mission, 
if after studying the ethics of marriage as pro- 
pounded and propagated through the socialist 
schools of philosophy, she did not express her 
mind about its teachings and its tendencies. She 
has done so in language about which there can 
be no mistake. Sovereign pontiffs have declared 
that till Socialism clears itself of the charge of 
unorthodoxy in its doctrine and philosophy about 
married life and home duties, no true son of the 
Church may identify himself with Socialism. 

In his Encyclical dealing with this subject, Pope 
Leo XIII, after reminding the faithful that "the 
governing principle of family life has, in accord- 
ance with the requirements of natural law, its 
basis in the indissoluble union of husband and 
wife, and its superstructure in the duties and 



152 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

rights of parents and children/ ' goes on to drive 
home these weighty words of warning which I 
now repeat to you. "You are aware/' writes 
His Holiness, " that the theories of Socialism would 
quickly destroy this family life, since the stability 
afforded by marriage under religious sanction 
once lost, parental authority over children and 
duties of children to parents are necessarily and 
most harmfully slackened. Socialists/' the Pope 
declares, "in setting aside the parent and setting 
up a State supervision, act against natural jus- 
tice and break into pieces the stability of all 
family life." 

No philosophy of life which is in contradiction 
with the natural law, and which breaks into 
pieces the stability of the family can be made, by 
any possible mental process, to fit in with the 
tenets of Christianity. "But," insists the Holy 
Father, "this is the teaching of Socialism," and 
therefore to accept the philosophy of Socialism 
is to reject the teaching of the Church. The two 
Schools hold views about marriage ties and home 
duties as opposite to each other as North to 
South. They are poles apart. And all hope of 
bringing them together vanishes from my mind 
like a dream. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 

Not many weeks ago I was strolling across a 
common on the outskirts of an eastern state 
city, when I found myself drawn to the friDge 
of a closely packed throng of men, who, with 
keenest relish, were gulping down a very torrent 
of invective that was being poured upon them by 
a tall, gaunt figure standing on a platform in 
their midst. "It is a libel, comrades," exclaimed 
the orator; "we are not rough on rats upon re- 
ligion. Let them that wants it have it, as for us 
it is not the churches we are after, but the land. 
We have no use for any clap-trap mountain-gospel, 
with its blessings on those who invite the capita- 
list to smite them on both cheeks ; nor do we 
believe in a beatitude which promises heaven to 
any craven spirit who meekly grinds himself to 
death for a starvation wage in a sweatshop. We 
have done with all such stagnant religion. Our 
mission is to create wants in the people and to 
force capitalists to supply them. That is my re- 
ligion, and that is yours.' ' 

153 



154 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

I find street-corner Socialism in all countries 
the same. What I hear in the States, I have 
heard in Canada, I have heard in France, in Bel- 
gium, in Italy, and in England. 

To-day we want to examine dispassionately but 
unsparingly the socialist attitude towards religion. 
What value does the Socialism which is alive in 
the street and in the press set upon religion? 
How does it regard morality and religion, those 
pillars of the State, " those buttresses," as Wash- 
ington called them, "of human life"? I am not 
here asking whether Socialism as a mere economic 
theory is bound up with religion or irreligion, but 
I am asking whether the socialist movement in 
the concrete, as a going concern, "as a philosophy 
of human progress, as a theory of social evolution, 
as an ethical practice," is or is not an irreligious 
movement, and in particular is or is not a move- 
ment hostile to Christianity. 

To estimate it aright, we must judge it as a 
whole. We must take a general view of its ten- 
dencies, of its spirit, of its so-called ideals, its 
aims and ambitions ; we must by no means do it 
the injustice of mistaking the personal opinions 
of its members for the spirit generated in its in- 
ception by the movement itself, and inextricably 
bound up with it. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 155 

If, then, you ask me what is the spirit that 
from first to last has characterized the living, 
energizing thing known to us as Socialism, I 
have no hesitation in answering that it is a spirit 
as antagonistic to Christianity as darkness is to 
light. Read the deliberate utterances of its found- 
ers and of its leaders in every land, and at every 
stage of its progress, and you can come to no other 
conclusion than that the pioneers, philosophers, 
and representatives of thorough-going Socialism 
have proclaimed that between Socialism and Re- 
ligion no banns can be published, no alliance can 
be recognized, no union can occur. 

Let us begin with Karl Marx, the man who, 
according to Ramsay MacDonald, taught Social- 
ism its own real meaning, translated its feelings 
into a dogma, and discovered its legitimate gene- 
sis. No doubt, I shall be told by some Socialists 
that Marx counts as a " back-number," that he 
and his doctrine are dead and gone. That is not 
true. Marx and Engels are still classical, even 
here in the New World. The authority and in- 
fluence of Marx remains to-day undimmed and 
undiminished. The victory of the Marxists at 
the Amsterdam Congress gives the lie to the mild 
utterances of my objectors. 

We are then concerned to know how did Marx 



156 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

and his associates regard the relations of Socialism 
to Christianity. We are told by so respectable an 
authority as H. G. Wells that the Socialism of 
Marx and Engels was "strongly anti-Christian in 
tone." Observe well that he does not state that 
these men themselves, apart from their Socialism, 
were anti-Christian in tone, but Wells is at pains 
to remind us that their hostility to Christianity 
was bound up with their Socialism; that in the 
measure in which they were Socialists they were 
antagonistic to Christianity. 

And, indeed, how could it be otherwise, seeing 
that Socialism is historically based upon a con- 
ception of the Universe which leaves no room for 
religion? It is built up upon materialism, and 
thoroughgoing Socialists are proud of its origin, 
and are trying everywhere to inculcate its mate- 
rialistic principles. 

"It is incontrovertible," says Bernstein, "that 
the most important part in the foundation of 
Marxism is its specific theory of history which 
goes by the name of the materialistic concep- 
tion of history. It was the boast of Marx that 
Socialism would deliver men's conscience from 
what he called the 'spectre of religion.'" John 
Spargo says: "The founders of modern scien- 
tific Socialism took the dogmas of Christianity 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 157 

at that time and held them up to intellectual 
scorn — a task by no means arduous." (Spargo, 
" Spiritual Significance of Modern Socialism," 
p. 86.) 

In fact, when we look to the genesis of Social- 
ism, we find that it first takes shape not merely 
as an economic method of curing the abuses of 
Capitalism, but as a new way of life, a shifting 
of all man's hopes and aspirations. It is, in fact, 
offered to the world as a substitute for religion. 
Nay, it cannot even find a basis on which to stand 
except on the ruins of Christianity, whose place 
it hopes fully to occupy, whose mission it promises 
more than to fulfil. 

Marx declared that the abolition of religion was 
a necessary condition for the true happiness of the 
people. (Volksblatt, No. 281.) In his criticism of 
the socialist platform he calls upon the labour 
party to declare its intention "of delivering men's 
consciences from the spectre of religion" (p. 564). 

" In what sense Socialism is not religion," writes 
Balfort Bax (" Socialism and Religion "), " is clear. 
It utterly despises the ' other world' with all its 
stage properties .... The Socialist whose ' social 
creed ' is his only religion requires no travesty of 
Christian rites to aid him in keeping his ideal 
before him." 



158 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

"We have simply done with God," cries Marx's 
henchman, Engels. "We must face and wipe 
out," shouts another, "those two curses, the curses 
of Capitalism and Christianity. Until that is 
done, nothing can be done," avows Dr. Aveling, 
the "free" husband of Marx's daughter. 

I will not weary you by a multiplication of 
quotations. Peruse socialistic literature, study its 
so-called classics, and you will arrive at one con- 
clusion only, that between Socialism and revealed 
religion there can be no possible modus vivendi. 

Individual Socialists will rise up, exclaiming : 
"Nous avons change* tout cela." Let them pro- 
test ; they do not count. The men who count in 
this movement are men like Bebel, "one of the 
greatest powers of Europe," Mr. Hunter calls 
him. If you ask this leading Socialist how Chris- 
tianity and Socialism are corelated, he will answer 
clearly and definitely that "Christianity and 
Socialism stand toward each other as fire and 
water." I want you to observe that Bebel is 
not here professing only his own disbelief in 
Christianity; on the contrary, he is here speak- 
ing on behalf of Socialism itself, and he publicly 
proclaims that Socialism in its nature and essence 
is opposed to Christianity as fire is to water. 
If I mistake not, in the Reichstag he went further, 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 159 

declaring before the assembled House that in re- 
ligion Socialists profess atheism. 

Is Bebel alone? Does he stand out in splen- 
did isolation from his fellows ? No. Liebknecht, 
whose influence is only little short of Bebel's, has 
proclaimed from the housetops that the duty of So- 
cialists as Socialists is to root out faith in God, or, 
to borrow his own language, he tells the world that 
no one is worthy of the name of Socialist who does 
not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism. 

Schaffle has reminded us that Social Democracy 
has ex-cathedra avowed atheism to be its religion. 
I might continue quotations, citing leading So- 
cialists on both sides of the Atlantic, proving up 
to the hilt that the Socialism, which is not busy- 
ing itself with undermining the very foundations 
of all belief in revealed religion and a personal 
God, is only a diluted Socialism, a Socialism 
offered to novices. It is not the genuine thing, 
and has no right to the brand labelled " Genuine 
Socialism." I shall be told, of course, that the 
more modern Socialism has cleared itself of its 
anti-Christian tendencies, that it stands neither 
for nor against religious principles. In answer 
to these assertions let me refer to a passage from 
" The Comrade," New York, 1903 : — 

" How often do we see quoted in our own press 



160 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

that familiar fallacy that 'the ethics of Chris- 
tianity and Socialism are identical.' It is not true. 
We do not ourselves, in most cases, believe it. We 
repeat it because it appeals to the slave-mind of 
the world .... Socialism as an ethical interpreta- 
tion of life is far removed from Christianity, and 
is of infinitely greater beauty and worth." 

Let us turn to Ferri, a leading Italian Socialist, 
to whose indefatigable propaganda is due much of 
the socialist organization among the peasants of 
Italy. "In common with most Marxian Social- 
ists," writes Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, "Ferri at- 
tacks religion and capitalism, marriage (as we 
know it) and private property in the means of 
production in the same breath." These words 
occur in the preface to a translation of a work of 
Ferri's, published by the Independent Labour Party 
with no repudiation of his blasphemies from which 
we take the following sentences : — 

" Socialism . . . tends to substitute itself for 
religion. ... It knows that the absence or les- 
sening of the belief in God is one of the most 
powerful factors in its extension." (" Socialism and 
Positive Science," p. 49.) 

Similar utterances might be quoted from the 
writings and speeches of the leading Socialists of 
Europe and America. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 161 

The anti-Christian spirit of Socialism, taking 
the movement as a whole, has also been pointed 
out by historical and scientific students of the sub- 
ject both within and without the socialist camp. 

Thus Professor Karl Pearson, a leading English 
socialist philosopher, writes as follows : — 

" Socialism is based upon a conception of mo- 
rality differing in toto from the current Christian 
ideal, which it does not hesitate to call anti-social 
and immoral. . . . The modern socialist theory 
of morality is based upon the agnostic treatment 
of the supra-sensuous . . . Can a greater gulf be 
imagined than really exists between current Chris- 
tianity and the socialistic code?" ("The Ethic of 
Free Thought," pp. 318, 319.) 

" Modern Socialism," wrote Henry George, "is 
without religion, and its tendency is atheistic." 
(" Science of Political Economy," p. 198.) 

"Socialism of the present day," says Professor 
Schaeffel, "is thoroughly irreligious and hostile to 
the Church. It says that the Church is only a 
police institution for upholding Capital, and that 
it deceives the common people with a l check 
payable in heaven ' that the Church deserves to 
perish." ("Quintessence of Socialism," p. 116.) 

The Berlin Vorwarts reminds its readers that 
we believe in no Redeemer, but we believe in re- 



162 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

demption. No man, no God in human form, no 
Saviour, can redeem humanity. Only humanity 
itself, only labouring humanity, can save humanity. 

For Pentecost, 1893, the same paper informed 
its readers that "Socialism is a new doctrine and 
proclaims the joyful gospel of redemption, but not 
of redemption through a Messias." 

The New York Volkszeitung speaks much on 
the same lines : "We do not believe," it writes, "in 
the Saviour of the Christians. Our saviour will 
come in the shape of the world-redeeming principle 
of Socialism." (Quoted by Cathrein, "Socialism," 
p. 221.) Blatchford is at pains to tell us : "That 
the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass 
of error. There was no Creator. There was no 
Fall. There was no Atonement." (" God and My 
Neighbor," p. 125.) In the Vorwarts, 1901, Bebel 
does not hesitate to say: "Christianity is the 
enemy of liberty and civilization. It has kept 
mankind in slavery and oppression." "Chris- 
tianity and tyranny," according to the teaching of 
the "Comrade" (New York, 1903), "are, and for 
ages have been, firmly allied. . . . There is no 
wrong which has not been justified by Christianity. 
Its very basis is a lie, and a denial of the basic 
principle of Socialism." Again, of Christianity, 
G. S. Herrons, who is, or was, representative of 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 163 

American Socialism in the International Bureau, 
says: "It is a huge and ghastly parasite. . . . 
The spiritual deliverance of the race depends on 
its escape from the parasite." Once more Bax 
contends that : "It is useless blinking the fact that 
this Christian doctrine is more revolting to the 
higher moral sense of to-day than the Saturnalia, 
or the cult of Proserpine could have been to the 
conscience of the early Christians." ("Ethics of 
Socialism," p. 250.) The Sozial Demokrat sums 
up the situation by saying: "Christianity is the 
greatest enemy of Socialism. When God is ex- 
pelled from human brains, what is called Divine 
Grace will at the same time be banished ; and when 
the heaven above appears nothing more than an 
immense falsehood, men will seek to create for 
themselves a heaven below." (It will be a second 
Babel.) 

So you see if we turn from the acknowledged 
leaders and students of Socialism, we find the anti- 
Christian spirit rampant. We find resolutions 
passed, threatening with expulsion any comrade 
who supports positive religion (Madrid, Septem- 
ber, 1892), and declaring Socialism to be directly 
contradictory to the immutable dogmas of the 
Catholic Church. "Christianity," says the Sozial 
Demokrat, the official organ of the German 



164 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Socialist, "is the bitterest foe of the Social 
Democracy" (May 25, 1880). 

Of the blasphemous parodies of the most sacred 
Christian institutions to be found in such socialist 
papers as the Berlin Vorwarls (circulation 120,000) 
or the Wahre Jakob (circulation 230,000) or the 
Italian Asino, I need not speak. They are beyond 
measure revolting. Yet they are no mere ex- 
hibitions of personal anti-religious prejudice. 
They are put forward in the name of Socialism, 
and we find them encouraged and supported by 
socialist leaders. There is no getting away from 
the fact that Socialism as a going concern is es- 
sentially anti-Christian. 

Let me repeat it : I am not asking whether 
Socialism, as a bare economic theory, is or is not 
incompatible with Christianity; nor am I asking 
whether individual Socialists are or are not anti- 
Christian : I am asking whether the actual move- 
ment called Socialism is or is not deeply imbued 
with an essentially anti-Christian spirit. The 
above instances are but a few out of a host which 
might be cited. But they may suffice for our 
purpose. It is impossible in a single Conference 
to cite as many witnesses as I should like. 

It would seem, then, to be no mere accident 
that gives this materialistic colour to the products 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 165 

of socialistic platform and press. Hostility to 
Christianity is no sporadic growth in Socialism. It 
is, as I have said, of the very stuff and substance 
of the actual movement. For Socialism pre- 
sents itself to us throughout its course, not merely 
as an economic system to be adopted on its merits 
and subordinated to higher ideals, but as a new 
way of life, readjusting our beliefs in every direc- 
tion. It claims and has ever claimed to fill the en- 
tire canvas of life, to absorb all man's energies, to 
serve not merely as partial means, but as his en- 
tire end. Socialism would dominate every depart- 
ment of human activity. Socialists will not toler- 
ate the organized religion founded by Christ. Nor 
is there any wide difference in this respect between 
the old Socialism and the new. What Marx and 
Engels bluntly declare, Bebel and Liebknecht, 
Ferri and Guesde, as bluntly reiterate — that they 
have done with Christianity. 

Yet Mr. H. G. Wells persists in thinking that 
the Catholic Church has fallen into the stupid 
mistake of confusing the private anti-religious ut- 
terances of particular Socialists with the socialist 
movement itself. He speaks of the " lamentable 
association of two entirely separate thought pro- 
cesses, one constructive socially and the other de- 
structive intellectually." (" New Worlds for Old," 



166 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

p. 198.) Similarly Mr. Bruce Glasier, the editor 
of the Labour Leader, has been triumphantly 
citing the cases of Liberals and Tories who have 
been irreligious or immoral. Such people are 
found in the ranks of every association, he urges. 
Why, then, saddle Socialism with their anti- 
religious or immoral words and actions? 

The Catholic Church has made no such foolish 
mistake as is here attributed to her. She has not 
taken the measure of Socialism from speeches and 
conduct for which Socialism is not responsible, 
any more than she has taken the measure of 
Socialism from the suggestive and entertaining 
volumes of Mr. Wells, or the valuable economic 
writings of Mr. Webb. She does not judge of 
the movement by what Mr. Belfort Bax sa3 T s any 
more than she judges of it by what Mr. Stewart 
Headlam says. She measures the movement in 
its entirety, noting its essential features, observing 
its basic suppositions, investigating its inner 
spirit. She estimates how far its hostility to 
Christianity proceeds from its very constitution 
and how far it is due to "an entirely separate 
thought process." And she declares without pas- 
sion, but without hesitation, that the actual move- 
ment called Socialism is prejudicial to man's 
spiritual welfare, and that the danger has not 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 167 

ceased to exist even though the blunt anti-Chris- 
tian utterances of the more outspoken have in 
some quarters been modified to an assurance that 
to Socialism " religion is a private concern." 
What that assurance is worth Father Joseph 
Husslein has proved. (See his last work, " Socialism 
and Social Problems.") 

I read only the other day in a leading maga- 
zine that the "old Religion being vitally con- 
nected with the old morality, men have distinctly 
broken with it altogether; that the only ethics 
worth considering are the ethics which lay stress 
on social reform, and that Christianity no more 
fits our times than snow-storms fit the heat of 
summer." 

In his " Socialism in Theory and Practice" Hill- 
quit says : "Without fear of serious contradiction we 
may define ethics as the science or art of ' right ' 
individual conduct of men towards their fellow- 
men." After reviewing Theological, Juridical, In- 
tuitional, Idealist, Utilitarian doctrines on the 
subject of ethics, of right and wrong, Morris Hill- 
quit goes on to offer his socialist views of the 
"Evolution of the Moral Sense," and he arrives at 
the conviction that : "The moral sense is a prod- 
uct of the process of evolution of man, gained in 
his early struggle for existence, precisely in the 



168 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

same manner as his intellectual qualities. It is 
a property of man in a state of society just as much 
as any of his physical organs, or as Mr. Bax puts 
it, 'the ethical sentiment is the correlate in the 
ideal sphere, of the fact of social existence itself 
in the material sphere/ The one is necessarily 
implied in the other, as the man is implied in 
his shadow." 

He goes on to ask: "What, then, is the true 
standard of morality applicable to modern 
society?" 

He proceeds to cite La Monte (" Socialism, Posi- 
tive and Negative," Chicago, 1907, pp. 60, 61), 
and writes : — 

"'Ethics/ says Mr. La Monte rather forcibly, 
'simply registers the decrees by which the ruling 
class stamps with approval or brands with cen- 
sure human conduct solely with reference to the 
effect of that conduct on the welfare of their class. 
This does not mean that any ruling class has ever 
had the wit to devise ab initio a code of ethics 
perfectly adapted to further their interests. Far 
from it. The process has seldom, if ever, been a 
conscious one. By a process akin to natural 
selection in the organic world, the ruling class 
learns by experience what conduct is helpful and 
what hurtful to it, and blesses in the one case and 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 169 

damns in the other. And as the ruling class has 
always controlled all the avenues by which ideas 
reach the so-called lower classes, they have hereto- 
fore been able to impose upon the subject classes 
just those morals which were best adapted to 
prolong their subjection. ' " 

Again, a little further on, Hill quit says: "The 
struggles between the bourgeoisie, the progenitors 
of the modern capitalist class, and the ruling class 
of landowners, have yielded many valuable ac- 
quisitions to modern civilization, and have re- 
sulted in the establishment of modern society, 
which with all its faults and imperfections is 
vastly superior to the feudal order which it dis- 
placed. The struggles of the dependent classes 
against the ruling classes in modern society have 
already produced the rudiments of a nobler social 
morality, and are rapidly preparing the ground for 
a still higher order of civilization. 

"The modern working class is gradually but 
rapidly emancipating itself from the special mo- 
rality of the ruling classes. In their common strug- 
gles against the oppression of the capitalist class 
the workers are naturally led to the recognition 
of the value of compact organization and solidary, 
harmonious action. Within their own ranks they 
have no motive for struggle or competition ; their 



170 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

interests are in the opposite direction. And as 
the struggles of their class against the rule of 
capitalism become more general and concrete, 
more conscious and effective, there grows in them 
a sentiment of class loyalty, class solidarity, and 
class consciousness which is the basis of a new and 
distinct code of ethics. The modern labour move- 
ment is maturing its own standards of right and 
wrong conduct, its own social ideals and morality. 
Good or bad conduct has largely come to mean to 
them conduct conducive to the welfare and success 
of their class in its struggles for emancipation. 
They admire the true, militant, and devoted ' labour 
leader/ the hero in their struggles against the 
employing class. They detest the 'scab/ the 
deserter from their ranks in these struggles." 

Here, for a moment, let me draw your atten- 
tion to some extracts from " Socialism v. Religion/' 
which tell us how the comrade class detests religion 
no less. 

" As part of the essential educational work that 
must be done before this emancipation can be 
achieved the present pamphlet has its place. 
It is an entirely proletarian product, and treats 
a serious subject seriously and scientifically. It 
is issued, not as the view of an individual, but 
as the accepted manifesto of the Socialist Party 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 171 

on the subject; and agreement with it and the 
general position of the Party entails upon every 
member of the working class the duty of joining 
the Socialist Party of Great Britain and helping 
forward its work." — The Executive Committee 
of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. 
January, 1911. 

In this official pamphlet the question at the 
outset is asked : — 

"Is Socialism antagonistic to religion? Can a 
Socialist be a Christian?" and then it goes on to 
say that " an explanation of the Socialist position 
on this question is the more urgent now, because 
the hypocritical and time-serving procedure of 
so many professed Socialists has enabled those 
who are frankly our opponents to keep the anti- 
religious aspect of Socialism effectively to the fore. 
Politicians angling for votes and office, and or- 
ganizations scheming for members and sub- 
scriptions, have almost all evaded the charge that 
Socialism implies atheism and materialism, by pre- 
tending that religion is in no way related to the 
question of Socialism." 

According to the teaching of S. P. G. B., reli- 
gion is the outcome of social ideas and economic 
conditions. We are told that "God did not create 
man, man created God in his own image." 



172 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Contrary to all reading of history the Socialist 
Party of Great Britain would have us believe that 
" Christianity, indeed, is a cemetery of dead reli- 
gions. ... It is the systematization and adap- 
tation of ancient beliefs in accord with the new 
social principle" which came in with the fall of 
the Roman Empire. The only reason why the 
older religions gave way before Christianity was 
that they ceased to be in harmony with the eco- 
nomic conditions and social order of a later date. 

" The Roman Catholic Church, which suited 
feudal times, in turn became undermined by a 
set of new economic forces with Protestantism as 
the result." 

"In the light of historical facts," says this 
pamphlet, " Socialism v. Religion," "it is clear 
that religion has evolved continuously under the 
pressure of natural causes, and in this it does not 
differ from all other things ; but a distinct charac- 
teristic is exhibited by religion's modern phase. 
In contrast with science, which grows in volume, 
complexity, interdependence, and definiteness, re- 
ligion decreases in volume, cohesion, and definite- 
ness, and is now in process of evolution — if such 
it can truly be called — into nothingness. It is, 
in fact, more accurately an evaporation than an 
evolution. . . ." 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 173 

"It gives point, moreover, to the truth uttered 
by Naquet that : whenever knowledge takes a 
step forward God takes a step backward." 

"It is therefore a profound truth/' continues this 
socialist classic, "that Socialism is the natural 
enemy of religion;" and it is the writer's proud 
boast that "the entry of Socialism is, consequently, 
the exodus of religion. . . . Socialism as a 
system of society means the end of supernatural 
beliefs." 

Socialism, we must not forget, is based on pure 
monism, whereas, " all religious teaching, " as the 
pamphlet before us points out, "is directly opposed 
to the scientific materialism, or monism, which is 
an integral part of socialist philosophy." 

We are again and again reminded that, "the 
materialist concept is the socialist key to history," 
and being directly antagonistic to all religious 
philosophy, it is destined, so we are assured, 
"to drive this philosophy and all its superstitions 
from their last ditch." 

We are furthermore told in this declaration of 
the principles of the Socialist Party in Great 
Britain that: "If a man supports the Church, or 
in any respect allows religious ideas to stand in the 
way of the principles of Socialism or the activity 
of the Party, he proves thereby that he does not 



174 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

accept Socialism as fundamentally true and of the 
first importance, and his place is outside. No man 
can be consistently both a socialist and a Christian. 
It must be either the socialist or the religious prin- 
ciple that is supreme, for the attempt to couple 
them equally betrays charlatanism or lack of 
thought. There is, therefore, no need for a spe- 
cifically anti-religious test. So surely does the 
acceptance of Socialism lead to the exclusion of 
the supernatural, that the Socialist has little need 
for such terms as Atheist, Free-thinker, or even 
Materialist ; for the word Socialist, rightly under- 
stood, implies one who on all such questions takes 
his stand on positive science, explaining all things 
by purely natural causation ; Socialism being not 
merely a politico-economic creed, but also an 
integral part of a consistent world philosophy. " 

With very good reason does the compiler of this 
party pamphlet close his work by once more 
assuring his readers that : "Our question is there- 
fore answered. Socialism, both as a philosophy 
and as a form of society, is the antithesis of 
religion." 

I have quoted at length from this manifesto about 
Socialism and Religion, recently put forth by the 
S. P. G. B., because I want you now listening to 
me to recognize what is the real, uncompromis- 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 175 

ing attitude of the dyed-in-the-wool Socialist 
towards religion — more especially towards all 
revealed religion. 

After indorsing the utterances I have put before 
you, well may thoroughgoing Socialists throw 
ridicule upon all such sayings as, " Socialism has 
no more to do with a man's religion than it has 
with the colour of his hair" (J. Ramsay Mac- 
Donald, "Socialism/' p. 101), and "I first learned 
my Socialism in the New Testament, where I still 
find my chief inspiration" (Keir Hardie, 1900, 
Merthyr boroughs) . 

In spite of Keir Hardie' s profession of faith, 
modern Socialists proclaim throughout their multi- 
tudinous press aod in their heated harangues that 
they believe in no Redeemer, but that they be- 
lieve in Redemption ; that no man, no Saviour, no 
God in human form, can redeem the humanity of 
the day ; that there is only one way of redeeming 
humanity — that humanity itself by labouring for 
humanity is to save humanity. 

Again, are we not told that it is Socialism which 
preaches the gospel of redemption, but not of 
redemption through the Messiah, but through the 
work of socialistic principles ? Once more, we are 
assured that the true Saviour has not come yet, 
but when he does come he will come in the shape 



176 SOCIALISM AXD CHRISTIANITY 

of the world-redeeming principle of Socialism. I 
do not hesitate to say that always and everywhere, 
at home and abroad, you will find the popular 
socialist leader crying out before a group of his 
fellow-believers: " Away with this cant of clergy, 
this gospel about stariands, this wait -till-t he-next- 
world kind of religion. We want no Christ, with 
His miracles of loaves and fishes in a day gone by ; 
what we want and what we intend to have is our 
share of this world's goods, here and now. We 
ask for no draft upon the bank of Heaven. Our 
Heaven is here and we will have it, we will no 
longer be fooled out of it by the capitalist." Not 
only will Socialism have nothing to do with re- 
vealed religion, but with Schaffle I am disposed 
to believe that even social Democracy would per- 
mit no freedom to religion and religious life. A 
socialist State would, of necessity, be far more 
intolerant than any existing State. The Paris 
Commune has not faded from our memory. 

Liebknecht, who discovered that direct attack 
on religion was a bad political move, declared at 
the Halle Congress that : " Instead of squandering 
our strength in a struggle with the Church and 
Sacerdotalism, let us go to the root of the matter. 
We desire to overthrow the State of the classes. 
When we have done that the Church and Sacerdo- 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 177 

talism will fall with it, and in this respect we are 
much more radical and much more definite in pur- 
pose than our opponents, for we like neither the 
priests nor the anti-priests." "-Religion," writes 
Bebel (" Woman "), " will disappear by itself, with- 
out any violent attack." 

But I cannot close the list without adding the 
testimony of a well-known American socialist 
writer, possibly the best equipped man in America 
to speak for his comrades and help them out of 
a difficulty. John Spargo in his book, "The 
Spiritual Significance of Modern Socialism," p. 88, 
tells us that the association of Socialism with 
atheism was an accidental result of the confluence 
of two streams of nineteenth-century thought. 
He excuses the founders of Socialism for attack- 
ing a Christianity which they thought was static, 
fixed, and resting on immutable dogmas. But he 
then informs us that all this has changed, that 
we have now discovered that Religion is a thing 
that is ever changing, and that the form of Chris- 
tianity is undergoing its mutation through "the 
centuries of growth and intellectual progress." 
With him Christianity is a stage only in the pro- 
cess of soul evolution. 

Christianity is to-day just what it was when re- 
jected by the founders of Socialism. Modern dis~ 



178 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

co very has left its dogmas just where they were 
two centuries ago. The founders of Socialism 
knew what real Christianity meant, and they made 
no mistake in singling it out as their most dreaded 
enemy. John Spargo may be right in telling us 
that Socialism will fit in with the new Christianity, 
with the Christianity of the evolutionist and the 
modernist, with the Christianity that will exist 
when dogma is done away with, and which may be 
found outside the Catholic Church, possibly a 
hundred years from now. What kind of Chris- 
tianity this will be we do not now care to say. 
But of this we are sure, that Socialism does not 
fit in with the old Christianity, with the Chris- 
tianity which, like Christ, is ever the same ; with 
the Christianity for which the martyrs shed their 
blood, and for which millions of Christians would 
gladly and proudly shed their blood to-day. How 
many, I ask, would shed their blood for the new 
Christianity which is put forward as the slave of 
time and change, and lays aside its dogmas just as a 
man does his winter garments, and which, under 
the guidance of men like John Spargo, puts in the 
same category of great men Karl Marx, Martin 
Luther, and Jesus Christ ? With this shifting kind 
of Christianity we are not concerned at present. 
But we are concerned with the socialist movement. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 179 

We say the Catholic Church measures this 
movement in its essential features, observing its 
basic suppositions, investigating its inner spirit, 
analyzing its plausible but fallacious explanations. 
The Church of Christ has her hand upon its pulse, 
she has taken its temperature, she has diagnosed 
its condition, and she declares without passion, 
but without hesitation, that the actual living thing 
called Socialism is prejudicial to man's spiritual 
welfare, and that the danger has not ceased to exist 
even though the blunt anti-Christian utterances 
of the more outspoken Socialists have, in some 
quarters, been modified to an assurance that to 
Socialism "religion is nothing more than a pri- 
vate concern." What is this assurance worth 
when weighed in the balance of facts? It is not 
worth the paper on which it is stated. 

I do not deny that there may be a few Catholics, 
especially in Europe, who are in an honest state 
of doubt as to whether the Church's denunciation 
of Socialism extends to certain milder forms of 
that doctrine which are sometimes to be found, and 
which claim to be merely economic and constitu- 
tional methods of curing evils which all of us admit 
to be intolerable. But a wider view of the matter 
will, we doubt not, enlighten them as to the real 
questions at issue. They will come, let us sincerely 



180 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

hope, to see the danger of taking even an indirect 
part in a movement which is characteristically 
opposed to the highest interests of mankind. It 
is impossible for the average Catholic man to 
stand his ground; he gets swept off his feet and 
becomes carried away by the movement. With 
those persons who write assuring me that Socialism 
has not interfered with their religion, I am not for 
the moment concerned. 

I shall be told that in England, at all events, 
Socialism has, as a rule, no anti-Christian implica- 
tions. It assumes no materialistic philosophy, and 
stands aloof altogether from questions of religion. 

I answer first that in point of fact this is not so. 
The Socialism which the people know, the Social- 
ism which is being assiduously pumped upon our 
toiling classes from platform and street corners and 
press, takes, in the main, the same view of human 
destiny and of religious truth as does the Socialism 
of the S. P. G. B. It is an international move- 
ment of common origin and progress. Its ethical 
outlook is always and everywhere the same. 

This is a statement which we have already in part 
verified. We are not dealing with abstractions and 
considering what might be. We are witnessing an 
agitation which is being carried on in our midst 
by men and women organized in certain definite 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 181 

societies with ascertainable aims and programmes, 
methods and ideals. Let us therefore look at the 
chief bodies which make up the socialist army, say, 
in England, and see whether or not their aims and 
ideals are any more compatible than those of 
Socialists abroad with the teaching of Chris- 
tianity. 

Let us begin with the Social Democratic Federa- 
tion which, I may assure you, is pouring its litera- 
ture over our wage-earning classes and represent- 
ing itself (not without some reason) as the real 
Socialism, the genuine article, true red Marxian, and 
allied with the great movement on the continent. 

Mr. Wells admits that the Socialism of the 
S. D. F. is to this day " strongly anti-Christian in 
tone." We need scarcely allege evidence to prove 
so notorious a fact. A glance at the literature 
published by the revolutionary body should be 
enough to put the matter beyond all dispute. 

Let us pass to the second and more important 
socialist body, the Independent Labour Party. 
It is more important because it is, as a matter of 
fact, succeeding to some extent in organizing the 
working classes, which the S. D. F. appears unable 
to do on any appreciable scale. The Indepen- 
dent Labour Party is generally admitted to be 
working on lines which, as Mr. Hunter points 



182 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

out, brings it into line with the most advanced 
Socialism of the continent, without alarming 
those to whom the outspoken principles of con- 
tinental Socialism would be distasteful. 

As a matter of fact, the work of organization 
which is going forward with such rapidity under 
the auspices of the I. L. P. often disguises from the 
eyes of the plain man the real aim for which the 
I. L. P. is steadily working. Hence, in order to 
discover the true inwardness of this movement we 
must go, not to the plain, blunt, and unsuspicious 
member, but to the leaders themselves ; and from 
them we shall find the issues plainly enough stated. 

To what spirit, then, are the members of the 
I. L. P. being moulded? What is their attitude 
towards Christianity ? 

"The Independent Labour Party is a socialist 
organization/ ' writes Mr. Keir Hardie, its founder, 
"and for most of us Socialists is a religion. . . . 
To 99 per cent of the members of the I. L. P 
Socialism comes with all the emotional power of 
a great religious truth. . . . Man is at bottom 
a religious enthusiast lured on by his vision of a 
Kingdom of God upon earth. Nothing else ex- 
plains the enthusiasm of the I. L. P." ("The 
I. L. P. All About It," p. 3.) 

But what is the nature of this "religion" which 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 183 

the I. L. P. is bent on fostering ? We fear that not 
all even of its members realize what it involves. 
In the first place, the I. L. P. is, as Mr. Hardie 
points out in the same pamphlet, an international 
party (p. 12), in touch with the representatives 
of Socialism abroad, of that " continental Social- 
ism" which, as Mr. Wells has told us, is " strongly 
anti-Christian in tone." What is more, it devotes 
a considerable amount of its energies to the task 
of initiating the British workmen into the spe- 
cifically anti-Christian conceptions of continental 
Socialism. A glance at its authorized publications 
will make this clear, a perusal of its " classics" 
will satisfy you. 

We may point out, too, that the I. L. P. is re- 
sponsible for circulating Blatchford's attacks on 
Christianity (cf. Labour Leader for October 4, 1907, 
and Mr. Glasier's admissions) and the atheistic 
publications of the rationalist press. What does 
all this mean ? It is not without significance. 

I am well aware that the I. L. P., at their council 
meeting held on October the 4th and 5th of 1907, 
adopted the following resolution : — 

"The National Council of the Independent 
Labour Party repudiates the attack upon Social- 
ism on the ground that Socialism is opposed to 
religion, and declares that the socialist movement 



184 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

embraces men and women of all religions and forms 
of belief, and offers the most complete freedom in 
this respect within its ranks. " 

We fear that this means very little. It means 
no more than did the declarations of the Erfurt 
Programme that " religion is declared to be a 
private concern/' or the previous declaration of 
the Gotha Programme that " religion is ruled to be 
a private matter." Similar resolutions are not un- 
frequently passed in socialist gatherings with a 
view to disarming suspicion. How are they to be 
interpreted? By the socialist ideals and by the 
socialist practice. What practical indication have 
Socialists ever given that they would be prepared 
to respect the religious convictions of others in the 
event of a socialist regime? What becomes of 
the workingman's religion after he has enlisted in 
the ranks of Socialism ? 

The German Socialists have, in their pro- 
grammes, made religion a private affair. But the 
German Socialists lose no opportunity of attack- 
ing the Christian religion and doing their best to 
uproot it. Hence, when English Socialists de- 
clare that they too would have religion to be a pri- 
vate affair, we look not to words but to their 
practical interpretation. And we find the practi- 
cal interpretation to be the same in both countries. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 185 

The visible Catholic Church is disliked and 
maligned equally in Italy and France, and in Eng- 
land and America no less. In my travels through 
the States I have made a practice of buying 
socialist papers in circulation. In most copies 
of them I found vile attacks upon religion; if 
not always direct, at least indirect, attacks. 

I have referred to the S. D. F. and the I. L. P. 
Now what of Mr. Blatchford and his Clarion f 
It may be urged that Mr. Blatchford and the 
Clarion are not English Socialism. I reply that 
they stand for the Socialism with which thousands 
of British workingmen are being indoctrinated. 
You may not be familiar with the nature and ex- 
tent of Mr. Blatchford' s propaganda. Let me tell 
you that over a million copies of "Merrie Eng- 
land " have been sold. A very large number of 
workingmen allow Mr. Blatchford to do their 
thinking for them. These men will control the 
nation, so far as is in their power, on Mr. Blatch- 
ford's lines. The Clarion and its allied publica- 
tions must certainly be taken into account when 
forming an estimate of the actual relations 
of Socialism to Christianity in England : for it is 
the Socialism of a very large number of men, and 
it would find its expression in actual measures 
were the cause of Socialism to triumph. 



186 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Mr. Wells is much distressed at the unsym- 
pathetic attitude of the Catholic Church towards 
Socialism. He gently insinuates that it may be 
due to a misapprehension. 

"It is said, indeed, that a good Catholic of the 
Roman Communion cannot also be any sort of a 
Socialist. Even this very general persuasion may 
not be quite correct. I believe the papal pro- 
hibition was originally aimed entirely at a specific 
form of Socialism, the Socialism of Marx, Engels, 
and Bebel, which is, I must admit, unfortunately 
strongly anti-Christian in tone, as is the Socialism 
of the British Social Democratic Federation to 
this day. It is true that many leaders of the 
Socialist Party have also been Secularists, and 
that they have mingled their theological prejudices 
with their political work. This is the case not 
only in Germany and America, but in Great 
Britain, where Mr. Robert Blatchford, of the 
Clarion, for example, has carried on a campaign 
against doctrinal Christianity. But this associa- 
tion of Secularism and Socialism is only the in- 
evitable throwing together of two sets of ideas 
because they have this in common, that they run 
counter to generally received opinions : there is 
no other connection (pp. 197, 198). . . . Per- 
haps, after all, the Church does not mean by 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 187 

Socialismus Socialism as it is understood in Eng- 
lish: perhaps it simply means the dogmatical, 
anti-Christian Socialism of the Continental type " 
(p. 139). 

But since Socialism is an international move- 
ment with close international relations, the fact 
that the " Continental type" of Socialism is dog- 
matically anti-Christian is not without interest 
for ourselves, especially in view of the eagerness 
with which English and American Socialists copy 
continental patterns. And what, after all, is 
" Socialism as it is understood in English?" Mr. 
Wells has given away at one fell swoop the 
S. D. F., "many leaders of the Socialist party" even 
in Great Britain, and Mr. Blatchford of the Clarion. 
He might, as we have seen, have added the I. L. P. 

Now what does Socialism mean to the British 
workingman, if it does not mean the Clarion, 
the S. D. F., the I. L. P., and the S. P. G. B. ? 

Mr. Wells, in order to reassure us, points trium- 
phantly to the Fabian Society, and in particular 
to Fabian tracts by Dr. Clifford and the Rev. 
Stewart Headlam and also to Rev. R. J. Camp- 
bell's "Christianity and Social Order." With 
these and other "Christian Socialists" I shall deal 
in another Conference. But I may say at once that 
no serious student of the movement will regard 



188 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

them as possessing any influence in the evolution 
of the Socialism that counts. Socialism "as it is 
understood in English " is not the Socialism of Mr. 
Headlam and his friends, nor is it ever likely to be. 

We are told, then, by Mr. Wells that there is 
no reason for alarm. True, continental Social- 
ism is secularistic, the S. D. F. is secularistic, 
the I. L. P. and the S. P. G. B. are secularistic 
(see their programmes), the Clarion is secularistic, 
"many Socialist leaders in Great Britain are sec- 
ularistic," but the Fabian Society has no such 
theological prejudice. The Fabian Society has 
made the required distinction between "two en- 
tirely separate thought-processes," and to the Fa- 
bian Society we may safely commit ourselves. 

Now although the Fabian Society has exer- 
cised a very considerable influence among a certain 
class of people in the matter of socialist education 
and propaganda, it has not so much as attempted 
to organize politically the working classes. Mr. 
Robert Hunter (a shrewd and well-informed 
American socialist writer) points out that the 
Fabians have, from the socialist point of view, ad- 
vanced no further than the position of the French 
Socialists before 1848; and he does not conceal 
his conviction that they are "Utopians" who are 
outside the real currents of socialist thought. 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 189 

" To have a history of agitation in London (he 
says) extending over twenty-seven years, and to 
show at the end of that period no definite political 
organization of the working classes, is perhaps 
the most damaging evidence against the Fabian 
policy." (" Socialists at Work," p. 205.) 

Mr. Hunter consoles himself with the reflection 
that there are few Socialists outside England who 
advocate Fabian tactics (p. 108). 

Hence, even were it true that the Fabians keep 
their Socialism free from secularism, we should 
not feel perfectly reassured. For the Fabians, sug- 
gestive and interesting as they may be, do not con- 
trol the swelling tide of English Socialism. 

However, Mr. Wells has appealed to the Fabians 
and to the Fabians we shall go. Of the clergymen 
who have written Fabian tracts I shall speak 
presently ; it will be seen that they increase rather 
than diminish our conviction as to the secularist 
implications of Socialism. But what of the other 
Fabians? Do they keep their secularism out of 
their Socialism? 

Let us take Fabian Tract No. 72, The Moral 
Aspect of Socialism, by Mr. Sidney Ball, M.A., of 
St. John's College, Oxford. 

"It would be idle to deny (he writes) that 
Socialism involves a change which would be al- 



190 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

most a revolution in the moral and religious 
attitude of the majority of mankind. We may 
agree with Mill that it is impossible to define with 
any sort of precision the coming modification of 
moral and religious ideas. We may further, how- 
ever, agree that it will rest (as Comte said) upon 
the solidarity of mankind (as represented by the 
Idea of State) " (p. 23). 

Socialism, then, involves a change in religion and 
it is to base its religion upon the Idea of the State. 
Hence Socialism, as interpreted by a distinguished 
Fabian, has theological implications, and its re- 
ligion (or substitute for religion) is not that of 
Christ but of Comte. 

Of Mr. Bernard Shaw, the most widely known of 
the Fabian writers, little need be said. I would 
only observe that his flippant irreverence and anti- 
Christian bias are not merely exhibitions of per- 
sonal bad taste. They are regarded by himself as 
part of his socialistic message. 

I shall take one more example from the ranks of 
the Fabians, and this time it will be Mr. Wells 
himself. Despite his invitation to Catholic flies 
that they should walk into his socialistic parlour, 
the contents of that parlour are not such as to 
reassure those of us who retain a belief in re- 
vealed religion. True, he is convinced that 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 191 

" Christianity involves ... a practical Socialism 
if it is honestly carried out." (" New Worlds for 
Old," p. 197.) But the Christian ideal is, he goes on 
to tell us, the ideal of William Morris's, "News from 
Nowhere" (ibid., p. 255), which again is the ideal 
of every man with "a full sense of beauty." But 
Christianity watered down to aesthetics is not the 
Christianity with which we are in any way con- 
cerned. 

Mr. Wells is careful to tell us what might be 
expected to happen to the Catholic Church under 
a socialist regime. We will select but one point 
of his forecast. 

" There seems no objection and no obstacle in 
Socialism," he says, " to religious houses, to nunner- 
ies, to monasteries, and the like, so far as these in- 
stitutions are compatible with personal freedom and 
the public health, but of course factory laws and 
building laws will run through all these places, 
and the common laws and limitations of contract 
overrides their vows if their devotees repent. 
So you see Socialism will touch nothing living of 
religion." (Ibid., p. 330.) 

This is charmingly ingenuous ! The State is 
to determine how much of religion is living and 
how much is dead. I fear that the average 
Socialist starts with a certain prejudice in the 



192 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

matter. Even so temperate a writer as Mr. Wells 
apparently fails to realize that some matters are 
subject to laws which transcend the common 
contract law "whenever the contracting parties 
repent." 

Mr. Wells's socialist parlour would seem to 
contain a Procrustean bed for the benefit of 
Catholics. Yet even that is better than what 
they would find awaiting them in the parlour of 
the complete Socialist, — to wit, a guillotine. 

This brings us to the whole question as to how 
Christianity might be expected to fare under 
Socialism. I will confine myself to the case of 
Catholics (for with their case I am chiefly con- 
cerned), though much of what I shall have to say 
may give matter for reflection to all who retain 
any belief in revealed religion. 

Let us suppose that the socialist regime has been 
established, either violently (as the S. D. F. ad- 
vocate) or by a peaceful process of Fabian per- 
meation. The House of Commons, we will im- 
agine, has an overwhelming socialist majority, 
the Crown and the Lords are abolished, and 
Socialists rule the London county council and 
all municipal bodies. 

And now what is to be done about the Catholic 
religion ? The question will have to be settled by 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 193 

men who resemble the members of existing social- 
ist bodies, — by men, that is to say, whose atti- 
tude towards Catholicism varies from an intense 
and even virulent opposition to a frank disdain, 
or, at best, to a complete inability to understand 
the position of those to whom the supernatural is 
the most real thing of which man has knowledge. 

A little acquaintance with history will reveal 
the fact that when religious legislation is framed 
by men who are not alive to the inwardness of 
religion, the "left wing" generally has its own way. 
For the "left wing" is consistent and has a simple 
and definite programme, — Ecrasez Vinf&me, or 
something equally drastic, — while the rest of the 
governing body can but propose a compromise 
which is apt to be half-hearted. So the consistent 
section generally gets its way. Its point might be 
illustrated by the history of more than one Liberal 
Government on the continent of recent years. 
Had Catholics of England during the past few 
years been a little less determined, we might have 
been able to illustrate the point by an example 
nearer home. 

However, let us suppose that this is not the 
case. Let us imagine that, contrary to all the 
tendencies which the main currents of Socialism 
have always and everywhere displayed, the work 



194 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of discovering a modus Vivendi for belated super- 
naturalists is confided to a committee consisting 
of a number of men as well-intentioned and un- 
prejudiced as Mr. H. G. Wells. I will not even 
embarrass their task by adding a sprinkling of 
Drs. Cliffords and Revv. Campbells. 

Now, what will be the task in front of these 
gentlemen, and how can they accomplish it so as 
to allow to Catholics an even tolerable existence ? 

"The heavy social burdens that oppress re- 
ligious bodies (says Mr. Wells) will (in a socialist 
State) be altogether lifted from them. They will 
have no poor to support, no schools, no hospitals, 
no nursing sisters ; the advance of civilization will 
have taken over these duties which Christianity 
first taught us to realize." 

But here difficulties begin to thicken about the 
heads of our well-intentioned committee. After 
all, they cannot put a million Lancashire folk and 
four hundred thousand Londoners into the lethal 
chamber. And until they do so they will find these 
among the number of British subjects (a number 
which shows no sign of diminishing, in spite of 
rationalist propaganda) in set rebellion against 
certain items of Mr. Wells's good-natured pro- 
gramme: "The religious bodies will have . . . 
to support ... no schools." There will indeed 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 195 

be little opposition on the part of the religious 
bodies to the proposal that they should not sup- 
port their schools. Were this alone intended, Mr. 
Wells would indeed be a benefactor. But we 
fear that the emphasis is on the "have," — 
Catholics would have no schools either to support 
or to control. This state of things they would 
emphatically resist. 

I cannot here go into the whole weary question 
of education. Suffice to say, that although the 
Catholic demand for Catholic teaching, in Catholic 
schools, by Catholic teachers, is demonstrably just 
and is in fact the only solution which can bring 
peace to any educationally distracted country, yet 
it is almost impossible to drive into the heads of 
those who have not a glimmering as to what 
Catholicism is all about, the notion that the 
Catholic demand for Catholic education is a 
reasonable demand. The secularist — even the 
well-meaning secularist — commonly persists in 
thinking that we harbour a prejudice in favour of 
obscurantism and inferior sewage. Let us hear 
Mr. Wells himself; he is considering the effects 
which would follow "a reaction" in favour of 
parental rights : — 

"Subject to the influence of a powerful and well- 
organized Church, a rejuvenescent Church, he, 



196 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the father, is to resume that control over wife and 
children of which the modern State has partially 
deprived him. The development of a secular 
education is to be arrested, particular stress is to 
be laid upon the wickedness of any intervention 
with natural reproductive processes, the spread of 
knowledge in certain directions is to be made 
criminal, and early marriages are to be encouraged. 
... I do not by any means regard this as an 
impossible programme; I believe that in many 
directions it is quite a practicable one; it is in 
harmony with great masses of feeling in the coun- 
try, and with many natural instincts. It would 
not, of course, affect the educated wealthy and 
leisurely upper class in the community, who would 
be able and intelligent enough to impose their 
own private glosses upon its teaching, but it 
would ' moralize' the general population, and 
reduce them to a state of prolific squalor. Its 
realization would be, I believe, almost inevitably 
accompanied by a decline in sanitation, and a 
correlated rise in birth-rate and death-rate, for 
life would be cheap and drain-pipes and anti- 
septics dear." ( u Socialism and the Family," pp. 
53-55.) 

But is there really any necessary connection be- 
tween the vindication of due parental rights and 



SOCIALISM AND RELIGION 197 

bad drainage : or do we religiously cultivate 
squalor, and all disease-producing microbes ? 
Catholics want, like others, to reduce squalor. But 
there is something about which they are still more 
anxious : they pay their ungrudging tribute of ad- 
miration and gratitude for the municipal trolley and 
for cheap fares to children — but they want Catholic 
education for their children much more than cheap 
transportation. ' ' I won't have my children growing 
up into irreligious products of a godless school," is 
possibly the form in which their prejudice might be 
expressed. And some acquaintance with secularist 
education might explain their warmth of feeling 
in the matter. We know something of the pro- 
fanity and lack of reverence, the bad manners and 
worse talk, that is fostered in many an elementary 
school where drainage is perfect, the microbe rare, 
and appurtenances are magnificent : and we con- 
trast them with the joyous innocence, the honesty 
and the respect for self and others which for the 
most part are to be found in schools taught by Reli- 
gious who have to struggle with poverty. Consult 
unprejudiced school inspectors on either side of 
the Atlantic, and you will understand what I say. 
Truth to tell, Socialism and Christianity cannot 
come together; they move in opposite directions; 
they are as much apart as Earth and Heaven. 



VI 

SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 

It is altogether unnecessary to draw out a 
long thesis to show that Christian Socialism is a 
form of Collectivism repudiated by all thorough- 
going Socialists. It is a contradiction in terms. 
It says one thing and means another. The man- 
in-the-street assures me that the Christian Socialist 
is tolerated only by the vote catcher. "We have 
got no use for him/' said a gold miner to me at Daw- 
son. "Why not? "asked I. "Well," he continued, 
" it is like this. If he is a real nugget, a church- 
going Christian, he is looking beyond what we are. 
He's a Northern Light, he is. What we want, 
is no sky-piloted Socialist, but on the contrary, 
we believe in the man who is whole-hearted on 
the job. We have a class-basis for our Socialism. 
We have class-hatred, no lying brotherhood, prom- 
ising two heavens, one down here, and the 
other up there." " Till Socialism gets hold of the 
heart," said another, "it is not going to be busy 
for the workingman; it is not his religion, and till 

198 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 199 

it is we have no use for him." Everywhere, from 
the Hudson to the Yukon, I found the wage-earn- 
ing Socialist to be the same dead-earnest apostle, 
believing in his mission, and prepared to make un- 
limited sacrifices to promote its interests and to 
extend its boundaries. One man told me that 
Socialism was like mining, it obsessed you, it dis- 
satisfied you for anything else, it buoyed you up 
and made you feel, as nothing else did, that life 
was worth living, and that one day you would strike 
gold and put the present robber millionnaire in his 
right place. "It may not come in my time," 
concluded my friend in overalls, "but it is rising, 
as sure as the tide, and before my children are 
through, the thing will be straightened out and 
there will be but one class in the States — the 
working class, with plenty to go round, and to 
spare." 

I suggested that it was the money and not the 
work that the Socialist wanted to go round, and 
that if men refused to work, there certainly would 
not be enough to go round. I told him that on 
the ship which had brought me to the Northland 
the quartermaster had said to me that it was not 
at all likely he and his mates were going to work as 
a crew, if, after their time was served, they were 
to be called upon to divide up their pay with 



200 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

loafers and loiterers on shore. "What we are 
all looking for is a bit of a home of our own, 
with bits of green stuff to brighten our store 
windows, and a tidy bit to put by for our own 
when we are gone. Be sure of this/' he went on 
to say, "we sea-faring men have got grit and sand 
in us, and we don't want anybody else's dimes ; 
we want our own, and it's up to us to shake off 
this Socialism which is only bred in idle bones, 
and in the men on the wharf who make a sorry 
face when you land, and want the loan of a dollar 
which they never offer to pay. When there's 
anything doing, they close up like clams." 

My Northland miner was not to be put off. He 
believed that the loiterer and tramp were bred 
of discontent, that when their circumstances and 
opportunities would improve, they too would im- 
prove. He quoted Lloyd George and his de- 
nunciations of the "idle rich," and declared that 
the working class had as much claim to idle as 
rich men, but that when the reign of Socialism 
should dawn, there would be no more idlers, no 
more unemployed or unemployables. 

It is quite surprising to find among Socialists 
an almost universal belief in the innate good- 
ness and industry of man, and in the assump- 
tion that it is the present iniquitous state of so- 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 201 

ciety which has dissatisfied, degraded, and de- 
praved the faulty brother. 

I spoke with another Alaskan Socialist at 
Ketchekan — I was looking over the creek bridge 
where 10,000 salmon, so thick that you could not 
see the bottom of the stream, were fighting their 
way up the rapids to lay their spawn in the sand 
banks beyond. There they were battling for 
dear life, it taking some of them four days to win 
as many yards. 

I turned to my socialist friend and observed : 
"Here is an equal opportunity for all, but I notice 
it is only the strong and the strenuous salmon that 
force their way and forge to the front. Is not 
this wondrous sight a picture of what happens in 
the human race?" He turned to me and said: 
" Socialism is going to make it easy for all. When 
we have socialized all the instruments of the pro- 
duction of wealth, there will be a living for all ; 
then hustling will be at an end ; none will have 
to lay back." He told me Socialism was growing 
all the time, and that there were thousands of 
Catholics among them in Alaska. I asked him 
whether he believed in Christian Socialism. He 
smiled, and said they claimed to have them in 
Chicago, where they published a paper called The 
Christian Socialists but they were of no more use 



202 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

than a prairie dog. Socialism was all or nothing. 
It was the best religion that ever was started, and 
it was going to win. One thing is sure, and it is 
this, that the workingman on this continent believes 
there must be a change, and he will tell you that no 
matter what you have against Socialism you will 
have to give it a chance. "It may not be the 
best solution of the difficulty," said a group of 
Western cowboys, "but it's the best as we know of. 
It can't be worse than the present state of things, 
and if we give it a square deal, it will most likely 
be far better for all of us. Anyway, it's coming, 
and we are in with it." 

Another little group of men from the copper 
mines informed me that they had been working 
for seven weeks, and had laid aside 200 dollars 
each which they would u fire," or spend in less than 
a week at Seattle. "We are like this ship," said 
one ; "we load up to unload ; when we are through 
with our 'poke' we will return for another freight." 
I expostulated with them and argued how much 
better it would be for them and for their characters, 
if, like the beaver, the squirrel, the woodpecker, 
the ant, and the bee, they banked what they could 
spare, becoming like them thriving, provident cap- 
italists. They replied that thrift was no plank in 
the socialist programme ; that it was better to be 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 203 

" down and out " than to hoard like a miser. When 
Socialism came in, there would be one crime only, 
capital. Meanwhile they did as they willed with 
their own. 

These happy-go-lucky bread earners, who live 
from hand to mouth, who will spend hundreds a 
night in a saloon, and when broken and turned 
out, quietly return to work till they have loaded 
up for another spill, are mere tools in the hand 
of the soap-box socialist orator. They greedily 
gulp down all he says, and readily believe in 
the forthcoming millenium which he promises. 
They have little outlook beyond the realms of 
hippodromes, saloons, and dime-theatres. 

Mr. Charles E. Russell, socialist candidate for 
governor of New York last year, was not hitting 
beyond the mark when he said: "To these men 
and women, Socialism does not mean a political 
party organized to win elections and to secure 
offices : Socialism is to them a religion." For the 
most part they know none other. 

Joseph Leatham in his work, "Socialism and 
Character," does not hesitate to say, "I cannot 
remember a single instance of a person who is 
at once a really earnest Socialist and an orthodox 
Christian. " 

The New York Call, March 2, 1911, reminds 



204 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

its readers that: " There is nothing to be gained 
by holding out false hopes that a study of Social- 
ism does not tend to undermine religious beliefs. 
The theory of economic determinism alone/' it 
goes on to say, "if thoroughly grasped, leaves no 
room for a belief in the supernatural." We are 
reminded, too, in a tract called Christian Socialism 
(p. 23) that " no Christian who accepts the Ten 
Commandments as the basis of the moral law can 
possibly deny the right of private individual prop- 
erty. If the Christian Socialist admits this, he 
is no Socialist ; if he denies it, he is no Christian." 
"The contradiction in terms," writes the author 
of " Socialism and Religion," "known as the Chris- 
tian Socialist is inevitably antagonistic to working- 
class interests and the waging of the class struggle. 
His avowed object is usually to purge the socialist 
movement of its materialism, and this, as we have 
seen, means to purge it of its Socialism and to 
divert it from its material aims to the fruitless 
chasing of spiritual will-o'-the-wisps." He con- 
cludes with the remark that : "A Christian Social- 
ist is, in fact, an anti-Socialist." 

In this pamphlet published by "the Socialist 
Party of Great Britain " and already referred to 
is found the following paragraph : — 

" The inflexible laws of the known universe can- 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 205 

not logically be held to cease where our immediate 
experience ends, to make way for an unscientific 
concept of an uncaused and creating Being. The 
Creation idea is unsupported by evidence, and is 
in conflict with every scientific law. Socialism 
is consistent only with that monistic view which 
regards all phenomena as expressions of the under- 
lying matter-force reality and as parts of the unity 
of Nature which interact according to inviolable 
laws. It is the application of science, the arch- 
enemy of religion, to human social relationships ; 
and just as the basic principle of the philosophy 
of Socialism finds itself in conflict with religion, 
so does it, as a propagandist movement, find re- 
ligion acting against it." 

The pamphlet continues : — 

"The main reason for capitalists' liberality to- 
ward religious bodies is plain. They know that 
religion is incompatible with Socialism, and look 
upon it rightly as a working-class soporific ; in- 
deed, as Marx said, ' religion is the opium of the 
people.' And it is thus the agent of class domi- 
nation, not only because of its beliefs and organi- 
zation, but also, in spite of opinions to the con- 
trary, by virtue of the ethics with which it is 
associated. The teaching of the Gospels, so far 
from supporting Socialism, is directly hostile to it." 



206 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

The dyed-in-the-wool Socialist is aggressive in 
his denunciation of the ethics of the Christian 
Socialist. He says: "The asceticism, self-abnega- 
tion, and professed other-worldliness of Christian 
teaching, which regards this earth as a vale of 
tears and a painful preparation for a life in the 
clouds, is an ethic of slavish degradation; and 
when taught to the workers, it admirably reflects 
the narrowest self-interest of the exploiting class. 
It is an ethic that runs counter to working-class 
interests at every point. It is the counterpart, 
not indeed of a communist, but of an individualist 
society." As an eminent prelate said at the 1909 
Church Congress at Swansea, " Individualism is 
of the very essence of Christianity. " And Chris- 
tianity, we may add, is by the same token the 
very antithesis of Socialism. 

I have shown that Socialism, the actual living 
Socialism which is preached in the highways and 
poured from the popular press, is a Socialism 
which is antagonistic to Christianity. Sometimes 
the antagonism is displayed openly and defiantly, 
as in the case of the Social Democratic Party. 
Sometimes it is encouraged in practice and dep- 
recated in theory, as in the case of the Indepen- 
dent Labor Party. Sometimes, again, it is 
wrapped up in semi-scientific language, and we 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 207 

are told with calm assurance that in future the 
"Idea of the State" will probably give us all 
the religion we shall want. 

But I shall be told that Christian Socialists 
have for their aim and object the conversion of 
Socialists from their gross materialism. Here it 
will be said is a movement which will christianize 
English and American Socialism and deflect it 
from its continental atheism. I shall be reminded 
that clergymen have written Fabian Tracts, that 
Pan-Anglican Congresses are largely tinged with 
Socialism, that a hundred and fifteen Christian 
ministers have signed a socialist manifesto, that 
a number of advocates of Socialism have been 
found at Free Church Councils, that the Christian 
Social Union harbours many socialist members, 
that the Christian Socialist League comprises none 
but socialist members, — that, in short, the Chris- 
tian Socialist is abroad. 1 

1 The Rev. S. Proudfoot in the Church Socialist Quarterly 
(of which he is editor) for January, 1909, thus writes of one of 
the meetings at the Church Congress of 1908 : — 

" It is hardly an exaggeration to say that if a vote on Social- 
ism had been taken at the end of this meeting, a majority 
would have been found supporting it. After this no one can 
charge Socialism as being anti-Christian. Christians at 
this meeting were shown that Socialists were inspired by 
Christ" (p. 57). 



208 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

I have not overlooked this movement. But 
as the result of a careful study of Christian 
Socialism in its various manifestations, I have 
come to two conclusions. The first is that the 
movement stands not the slightest chance of coun- 
teracting the predominantly anti-Christian tone 
of current Socialism. The second is that in so far 
as it is really socialistic and not merely social, 
it has cut the ground from under its feet by 
abandoning what is most characteristic and vital 
in Christianity. 

Let me begin by paying my sincere tribute of 
praise to the generous spirit in which many clergy- 
men of the Established Church, and of the Free 
Churches are endeavouring to grapple with social 
evils. Their sympathy with the poor and suffering 
must command the respect of all right thinking 
men. Too long have many Christians neglected 
the just grievances of the toiling and suffering 
classes, and all must welcome a movement in 
favour of Christian social reform. But in taking 

"After this" we are not surprised to find the Reverend 
writer going on to tell how all "reactionary survivals were 
hushed when the Professor (Burkitt) ended his speech with 
what was really a scathing and prophetic denunciation of 
organized Christianity." That disorganized Christianity 
should ally itself with Socialism is, after all, not so very sur- 
prising. 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 209 

to Socialism the clergymen in question are making 
an alliance with a power which they cannot control 
and which must eventually control them. And 
in doing this, are they not rejecting the mighty 
forces of social reform which Christianity has 
placed in their hands ? 

There is something pathetic in the way in 
which " Christian Socialists " are making efforts 
to ingratiate themselves with organized bodies 
of men who take no pains to conceal their hatred 
of Christianity. "Everywhere the aid of the 
Christian Socialist League was warmly welcomed 
by our brethren ... of the S. D. P.," says a report 
of the Salford Branch of the Christian Socialist 
League. (Church Socialist Quarterly, January, 
1909.) 

"Our brethren of the S. D. P ■!" True, all men 
are our brethren, — or let us say our brothers, 
since we are reminded of the witty definition, 
Brethren: "an ecclesiastical noun of multitude, 
no connection with brother." But this does not 
mean that we should be ready to assimilate 
all men's methods or share their eccentricities. 
Now the C. S. L. is only too anxious to cooper- 
ate with the S. D. P. as a society. We have 
already seen something of the S. D. P. and its 
assiduous railings at Christianity. How does it 



210 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

reciprocate these touching marks of affection and 
confidence ? Let us hear its leaders. 

" Lastly, one word on that singular hybrid, the 
'Christian Socialist.' . . . The association of 
Christ ianism with any form of Socialism is a 
mystery, rivalling the mysterious combination of 
ethical and other contradictions in the Christian 
divinity itself " (sic !) . (Belfort Bax, " The Ethics 
of Socialism/' p. 52.) 

Christianity, according to Mr. H. M. Hynd- 
man, the founder of the S. D. P., is practically a 
dead creed. Socialism is the only religion left. 
(Vide Daily Express, Feb. 1, 1908.) 

These are scarcely the words of a man who 
welcomes the aid of Christians as such. 

The workingman is being taught in popular 
pamphlets to reject any Christian flavour in his 
Socialism if he would have the real article. Sen- 
tences such as the following are not unfrequently 
to be met with in socialistic literature : — 

" Let us make a stand against this persistent 
hankering after a Christian sanction for a system 
which carries its own sanction with it." (" Was 
Jesus a Socialist ? " by James Leatham. Twentieth 
Century Press.) 

This protest is no novelty; but Christian 
Socialists persist in shutting their ears to it, or 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 211 

ascribing to it a confusion of ideas in the social- 
ist mind. We fear that the mental confusion lies 
elsewhere. They must recognize that the French 
are a logical people, so let me quote them some 
words of M. Miller and : — 

" Socialism offers to our appetite for justice and 
goodness a purely human ideal completely dis- 
engaged from all dogma, and thus distinct, with- 
out possibility of confusion from Christian Social- 
ism." (" Disc, de Saint-MandeV') 

Nor can it be said that the " Christian Social- 
ists" have made any contribution to the cause of 
Socialism except in so far as they have increased 
the number of its adherents by blinding their 
spiritual charges to the real questions at issue. 
The socialist leaders want votes, and they will 
sometimes conceal their contempt of their clerical 
allies in order to use the latter as a cat's-paw by 
which to reach churchgoers. But with the ex- 
ception of those cases in which their Christianity 
has completely evaporated under the action of 
their Socialism, the Christian Socialists have con- 
tributed little or nothing to the thought of the 
movement. It must be confessed that their 
economics and sociology commonly inspire as 
little confidence as their theology. 

Let me repeat once more that I am speaking 



212 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of the "Christian Socialist/' and not of those Chris- 
tian social reformers who sometimes complicate an 
already confused problem by calling themselves 
Socialists, while expressly disavowing the funda- 
mental tenets of Socialism. Long ago, at the 
Church Congress of 1890, the Bishop of Durham 
in his paper on " Socialism" said that he would 
"venture to employ it [the term Socialism] apart 
from its historical associations," and then pro- 
ceeded to make it a mere synonym for cooperation. 
The Bishop might, of course, employ the term in 
any sense he liked ; but what is the use of attempt- 
ing to give a new meaning to a word which stands 
for a definite historical movement. Other Angli- 
can bishops have, unfortunately, taken the same 
line. They have declared themselves Socialists, — 
but added that they do not believe in the transfer 
of all the means of production to the community. 
The result of this trifling has been that many social- 
ist clergymen to-day are willing to throw them- 
selves at the heads of any organized bodies 
labelled with the name of Socialist. They are ready, 
as the Rev. Stewart Headlam says, "to unite with 
Socialists of every sort," no matter, apparently, 
how definitely anti-Christian those Socialists may 
be in their methods and aims. Yet they " ought 
to be aware," as Mr. Roosevelt has written in the 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 213 

Outlook, "of the pornographic propaganda of the 
movement." 

"This attitude of ignorance and confusion on 
the part of the Church of England," writes Mr. 
Geoffrey Drage, M.P., "is in marked contrast to 
the expressed opposition of the Catholic Church." 
(" The Labour Problem," p. 380.) 

But let me pass to my second and more serious 
criticism of the Christian Socialists. Not only are 
they incapable of deflecting English Socialism, 
but they have effaced from their own teaching 
those very characteristics which make Christianity 
a great social power. Not only is their Socialism 
feeble, but their Christianity is eviscerated. 

For these Christian Socialists, whatever be 
their measure of good faith, are effectively be- 
traying the cause of Christianity. They are putting 
forward as Christianity a view of Christ's mission 
and teaching which is directly contradictory to the 
Gospels, and is repudiated by the voice of Christian 
tradition. Of their appeal to the example of the 
early Church and to the Fathers I shall have some- 
thing to say presently. Let me first examine 
their account of the Gospel message. It will not 
be difficult to show that they have robbed that 
message of its deepest truth, and deprived it of 
those very characteristics which have been the 
secret of its power. 



214 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Let me begin by sketching, in the simplest way, 
the purport of Christ's teaching as it is revealed 
in the New Testament and expounded by the 
voice of tradition. I shall not go beyond the 
substance of the penny catechism familiar to 
every child in a Catholic elementary school. 

Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed 
Trinity, made man and born of the Virgin Mary, 
is our Redeemer. He came on earth "to redeem 
us from sin and hell and to show us the way to 
heaven." Man in consequence of the Fall had 
come under God's disfavour. He had forfeited 
the gifts given to Adam, including that chief 
gift by which he was raised from the condition 
of servant to that of a son of God. A divine sat- 
isfaction was required to redress the balance. 
Such satisfaction was found in the death of Christ. 
By it we are made once more sons of God and 
members of Christ's mystical body. If we have 
faith and are baptized, we are restored to that in- 
timate communion, that ineffable friendship with 
God, of which the presence of the Holy Spirit 
in our souls is the pledge and the accomplishment. 

Christ came to raise the human race to a su- 
pernatural life. He founded a Kingdom — the 
" Kingdom of God" — which transcends the 
material kingdom to which the more worldly 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 215 

minded of the Jews looked forward. His King- 
dom was to be consummated in Heaven, but it 
was to have its beginnings on earth. It was to be 
a spiritual Kingdom, — a Kingdom of grace here 
and of glory hereafter ; yet it was to have its visible 
expression here in His Church. Hence the term 
is sometimes applied to the consummated and glo- 
rious Kingdom in eternity, sometimes to the spirit- 
ual life within the soul which lifts men to this 
higher order, and sometimes again to the visible 
Church, the Kingdom on earth. 

But in every case the Kingdom is a supernatural 
kingdom. It is a sphere of spiritual blessing and 
privilege. It demands repentance and faith. It 
is " otherworldly," for its consummation is in 
Heaven, — though the securing of that consum- 
mation involves the performance of duties here 
on earth. 

What, then, is the aim of the whole Christian 
dispensation? What is the purport of Christ's 
teaching ? It is to make of the individual a child 
of God, to sanctify his soul, to unite him to God, 
to give him an eternal destination and help him to 
reach it. As I have pointed out in another Con- 
ference, the Christian message is primarily for the 
individual and not for society. Christianity is 
democratic in this high sense that its chief stress 



216 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

is on the priceless value of the individual. And 
besides being a message to the individual, it is a 
spiritual message : it is concerned with the soul 
of the individual. 

Hence its chief end is not man's well-being on 
earth. It regards temporal progress as quite in- 
significant except in so far as it is a means to ever- 
lasting life. It tells us that man has not here an 
abiding city, and that this life is a test and a 
trial for a life hereafter which is ineffably more 
important. 

As a matter of fact, this Christian otherworld- 
liness is by no means prejudicial to man's temporal 
prosperity. As I have shown in another Con- 
ference, the deeper our faith is in a life to come, the 
stronger will be our resolve to make justice reign 
in the world, to use our talents for the common good, 
to relieve misery and distress, and to make human 
existence a bright and beautiful thing. But the 
point to notice here is that Christianity from first 
to last, Christianity as preached by Christ and 
His apostles, by saints and by doctors in all ages, 
is concerned first and foremost with man's re- 
demption and sanctification, with the raising of 
the individual to a sonship with God which shall 
be revealed only in the life to come. 

The Christian Church starts with its belief in 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 217 

the fall of man through Adam, and in his redemp- 
tion through Christ. Socialism, on the contrary, 
opens its campaign with the philosophy of the in- 
nate goodness and Tightness of man, teaching that 
it is not the regeneration of man's heart but of 
his environment that is most of all needed for his 
emancipation from all evil. 

Now, then, let us turn to the " Christian So- 
cialists " and see what is the caricature of Chris- 
tianity upon which they endeavour to base their 
Socialism. 

" What think ye of Christ ? Whose Son is he ? " 
was Our Lord's test question. Among the earli- 
est heresies which the Church had to strangle 
were the heresies of those who denied that Christ 
was Divine, the Son of God, sent by the Father to 
do a work which only God could do. 

What was Christ's work and mission on earth 
according to the " Christian Socialists " ? Do they 
regard it as a supernatural work ? 

"It is extraordinary (says the Rev. Percy 
Dearmer, in Fabian Tract No. 133) how little many 
Christian people realize the meaning of their own 
religion so that they are actually shocked very 
often at Socialism; and yet all the while Social- 
ism is doing just the very work which they have 
been commanded by their Master to do. This 



218 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

fact is so obvious that no representative and re- 
sponsible Christian body can be found to deny 
it" (p. 3). 

Mr. Dearmer apparently does not regard the 
Catholic Church as a " representative and re- 
sponsible Christian body/' for he must know that 
the Catholic Church has persistently denied that 
Socialism is doing the work which Christ com- 
manded us to do. 

The writer then proceeds to consider what he 
calls the " central features of Christianity/' and 
endeavours to show that they all correspond with 
Socialism. 

On page 5 he has the following note : — 

"Let it be clearly understood. This Tract is 
not written to belittle the Godward side of reli- 
gion, or to condone that lack of spirituality which 
is too common already. But its object is the 
duty to our neighbour, which is as much neglected 
as the duty to God." 

But whatever may have been the author's in- 
tention in writing the Tract, the Tract itself does 
clearly belittle "the Godward side of religion." 
Not only is its whole stress on material well-being, 
but it distinctly conveys the impression that 
material well-being is the ultimate end of reli- 
gious effort. Its theme is not duty to our neighbour 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 219 

in the Christian sense (an excellent text which 
much needs preaching) but duty to our neighbour 
in the socialistic sense. By an ingenious perver- 
sion of scriptural texts it reaches the conclusion 
that Christ's work on earth was identical with 
the work of socialist bodies. 

Christ, we are told, was executed " because 
He preached revolutionary doctrines " (p. 4), — 
"the Magnificat was a revolutionary hymn " (p. 7). 
" St. John the Baptist told the people to practise 
communism." He did "just what Socialists are 
trying to do" (p. 5). 

I may observe in passing that I have not yet 
met with any Fabian Tracts, or S. D. P. pamphlets, 
which, with St. John the Baptist, invite people 
to confess their sins and do penance. Nor is his 
advice to be content with one's pay, a main 
plank of the socialistic platform. St. John 
wanted to moralize, and spiritualize, existing in- 
stitutions, not to sweep them away. His purpose 
was to change men's hearts rather than their 
incomes. He makes no attacks on private prop- 
erty, though he insists on its responsibilities, as 
the Catholic Church has always done and contin- 
ues to do to-day. 

The writer then goes on to consider the "four 
most prominent forms" of Christ's teaching, — 



220 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

His Signs, His Parables, His Sermon, and His 
Prayer. 

As to Christ's " Signs" we are told that "He 
devoted a large part of His time to fighting against 
disease and premature death" (p. 6). The ex- 
pression "fighting against" is one which will 
scarcely commend itself to a believer in the Divin- 
ity of Christ. It suggests a limitation of Christ's 
omnipotence, and is quite inapplicable to the 
calm majesty of the Divine Wonder-worker. 
And to say that He "devoted a large part of his 
time" to this work suggests that His object was 
confined to a mere humanitarian alleviation of 
temporal misfortunes. No glimpse is offered us 
of the deep spiritual meaning of Christ's miracles 
of healing, — of His constant care to bring out 
their typical reference to that much more appall- 
ing evil, — sin. 

"Death in youth," continues Mr. Dearmer, "is 
horrible, and so are sickness and deformity." 
True, these are things which we endeavour to 
prevent. They are, in themselves, physical evils. 
But to call them, in the concrete, necessarily 
"horrible" shows a strange insensibility to the 
real values of life. The death of the girl martyr 
St. Agnes is scarcely "horrible" to the Christian 
eye. We may add that the heroic death of a 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 221 

young soldier is not commonly called "horrible," 
even by those who are not Christians. Sad it 
may be ; but it is also glorious. If St. Paul could 
glory in his infirmities, we too, amid all our efforts 
to relieve pain in a true spirit of Christian charity, 
may yet bless the mercy of God which will not 
remove all pain from our midst. Given our pres- 
ent nature, the world without pain would not be a 
very sympathetic place to live in. It is suffering 
that is always drawing us into closer union ; it is 
the child's cry of pain which brings to its bedside 
the mother and the nurse. With no pang of pain 
to sound the alarm the doctor's aid might be all too 
late. 

But the Rev. Mr. Dearmer's Fabian Tract only 
reechoes the Rev. Mr. Headlam's Fabian Tract 
in which we read : — 

"The death of a child, or a young man, or a 
man in the prime of life — that is a monstrous, a 
disorderly thing; not part of God's order for 
the world, but the result of wrong-doing, some- 
where or other. And if you want a rough de- 
scription of the object of Christian Socialism, I 
should be bold to say that it was to get rid of pre- 
mature death altogether" (p. 3). 

If my readers want a rough description of the 
object of Christianity, I need no boldness to say 



222 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

that it is to get rid of everlasting death altogether, 
and to help all men, young and old, to meet physi- 
cal death, when it comes to them, with Christian 
faith and confidence. The mother of the Mac- 
cabees would, it seems, have made a poor Chris- 
tian Socialist ! 

But we must follow Mr. Dearmer a little 
further : — 

" Our English Bible calls these acts miracles ; 
but this is a mistranslation of the original Greek, 
which calls them signs — that is, significant acts." 

The English Bible as a matter of fact also calls 
them signs, — and the original Greek has various 
terms for them which justify our calling them 
strictly miracles. But the point to notice here 
is that the writer gains nothing at all by calling 
them " signs." For a sign, as he himself points 
out, is a significant act. Now by reducing Christ's 
miracles to the level of humanitarian healings 
he robs them of all their significance. Christ 
wrought miracles — " signs" — to prove His di- 
vine mission, and not merely to remove physical 
suffering. This is their significance. Yet Mr. 
Dearmer continues : — 

" All sanitary and social reform is but carrying 
out on a larger scale the signs which Our Lord 
wrought for our example" (p. 6). 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 223 

This is amazing ! But it does not stand alone. 
Let us turn back to the Rev. Mr. Headlam's 
Fabian Tract. There we read, on pages 6 and 7, 
the following : — 

" The Christian Church, therefore, is intended to 
be a society . . . mainly and chiefly [italics ours] 
for doing on a large scale throughout the world 
those secular socialistic works which Christ did 
on a small scale in Palestine." 

Any Catholic child in an elementary school 
would reply, with the Christian saints and doctors 
of all ages, that the Church exists mainly and 
chiefly for nothing of the sort. The Catholic 
child would tell Mr. Headlam that it was the 
mission of Christ's Church first of all to teach the 
Divinity of the Teacher, and then, and as a conse- 
quence of it, the infallible character of His teaching. 
The child would know what Mr. Headlam does 
not, that the Christian Church is chiefly concerned 
with the spiritual welfare of its children though 
their material well-being concerns it no less. 

Mr. Dearmer displays a similar perversity in 
his account of the Parables of Christ. 

" And here I would point out the meaning of a 
whole series which are called the ' Parables of the 
Kingdom.' They expressly confute the common 
notion that the Kingdom of Heaven is something 



224 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

only in the next world, and that men are set only 
to save what Kingsley called ' their own dirty 
souls'" (p. 7). 

True, the Kingdom of Heaven has its beginnings 
in this world, and we have to help to save the 
souls and bodies of our neighbours as well as our 
own. It is natural, too, that the earthly phase 
of the Kingdom should be most prominent in the 
Parables. But the Parables by no means confute 
the Christian notion that man's doings in this 
world derive their chief importance from their 
bearing on the next. As for Kingsley's phrase 
about men saving "their own dirty souls," it is, 
if we take it seriously, an offensive piece of ir- 
reverence against the solemn words of Christ Our 
Lord, — "What doth it profit a man if he gains 
the whole world and surfers the loss of his own 
soul ? " Was it not for the priceless individual soul 
that our Saviour lived, bled, and died and rose 
again ? 

The phrase, "the Kingdom of God," is one 
which is frequently employed by Christian So- 
cialists as an equivalent of the socialist State. 
The new precursors of the Kingdom may be men 
who are filled with the bitterest hatred of Chris- 
tianity, — blasphemers to whom St. Paul would 
have given short shrift. That does not distress 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 225 

the Christian Socialist. Let us hear the Rev. 
R. J. Campbell : — 

" I am rather keen on Robert Blatchford. I have 
an impression that he has done high service for 
England. He has preached the Kingdom of God.'' 
("The New Theology and the Socialist Move- 
ment," p. 9.) 

Mr. Blatchford (who does not believe in God) 
may well ask to be saved from his friends ! 

This socialistic use of the term, " Kingdom of 
God," is commonly a mere piece of empty rhetoric 
for which not a word of historical justification is 
offered. But sometimes, on the other hand, at- 
tempts are actually made to find in the Bible a 
justification for it. 

Such writers start from the old Theocracy and 
argue from the detailed legislation thereof to the 
nature of the Kingdom which Christ came to 
found. Their fundamental mistake is the assump- 
tion that the Theocracy was a first stage of the 
Kingdom. Really it is sharply distinguished 
against it: "The Law and the Prophets were 
until John: from that time the Kingdom of God 
shall be preached." There is indeed a relation 
between them, but it is merely that of type and 
anti-type, the two being on completely different 
planes. 

Q 



226 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

I must be allowed to dwell in this matter for a 
space, since the mistake just alluded to is at the 
root of much wild talk among Christian Socialists 
about the realization of the Kingdom of God. 

In the Theocracy God was the immediate and 
personal Ruler of the State, the Head of the civil 
government. Like any other wise legislator He 
laid down a number of positive laws to meet the 
special needs of that time and people. Included 
among these were the laws concerning land tenure 
on which some socialist writers lay much stress. 
But of the three classes of laws, judicial, ceremonial, 
and moral, for which there was divine sanction in 
the days of the Theocracy, only one, the moral, 
has a direct relation to the end of the Kingdom of 
Christ, — the "Ecclesia" of those who are by 
divine adoption the sons of God. The judicial and 
ceremonial laws of the Mosaic dispensation passed 
away with the old order. Indeed, purely economic 
legislation was bound to change with varying 
economic conditions of life. The law, for in- 
stance, of the Year of Jubilee, an example on which 
some stress has been laid, has no more a place in 
the unchangeable moral order instituted by God, 
than has the precept against eating the hare or 
the screech-owl, which also belongs to the positive 
law of the Theocracy. 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 227 

Still more futile is the attempt to find a social- 
istic basis for the Kingdom in the denunciations 
of the Prophets. The prophet Isaias, a special 
favourite of the Christian Socialists, thunders 
against the oppression of the poor (any Catholic 
child could tell them that this is one of the "four 
sins crying to Heaven for vengeance")? but the 
oppression in question is the flagrant violation 
of the ordinary principles of justice as recognized 
alike by Socialist or individualist. I will quote 
some of the passages which are brought forward in 
support of socialistic tenets : — 

" The princes are faithless, companions of thieves ; 
they all love bribes, they run after rewards. 
They judge not for the fatherless and the widow's 
cause cometh not into them" (i. 23). 

"Wo to them that make wicked laws, and when 
they write, write injustice : to oppress the poor 
in judgment and do violence to the cause of the 
humble of my people : that widows might be their 
prey and that they might rob the father- 
less" (x. 1,2). 

The rich and the ruling classes used a corrupt 
judicature to rob and oppress the poor. It needs 
the vivid imagination of a Socialist to see in the 
invectives of the Prophets against this horrible 
sin a divine warrant for Socialism. 



228 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Of a further type of Christian Socialism we 
need take little notice here, in that it has no claim 
to the title " Christian" as that word is ordinarily 
understood. We have an example of this in 
Rev. R. J. Campbell's book, " Christianity and the 
Social Order." The author denies to Our Lord 
any object whatsoever save that of material re- 
form. The one essential message of Jesus, the 
message of the supernatural life, of the "one thing 
necessary, " he not only ignores, but even denies its 
existence. Our Lord had no thought of a life 
beyond the tomb; He was concerned only with 
the future of men on earth. His answer to the 
Pharisees who asked, to which of the seven hus- 
bands she had successively the woman should 
belong "in the resurrection," is thus commented 
on by Mr. Campbell : — 

" He even seems to have thought that marriage 
and procreation would be at an end with the es- 
tablishment of the Kingdom of God, although 
that establishment was to take place on earth." 

Sin as between man and God is, to this writer, 
a figment of the theological imagination. The 
only sin that would seem to be recognized by Jesus 
is selfishness. 

There is no serious attempt at proof. Mr. 
Campbell accepts as unquestionable the more 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 229 

extreme conclusions of the German rationalists, 
and simply ignores all the supernatural side of 
our Saviour's personality and teaching. How sad 
it is that he appears to be incapable of rising to 
anything higher than the world of sense. 

To me it seems unnecessary to discuss a system 
built upon such premisses. Whatever may be 
said for it on economic grounds, it certainly does 
not merit the epithet " Christian," since its very 
foundation is the denial of all that is best and 
highest in Christianity. 

Let us return, therefore, to the more typical 
" Christian Socialist' ' who retains at least some 
faint belief in the supernatural nature of our reli- 
gion, though he is for ever readjusting her dog- 
matic attitude toward it at the dictation of the 
so-called higher critics. As with the dogmatic, 
so with the moral teaching of Our Lord, he seems 
never in the repose of certitude. His life is on 
quicksand, not on the rock. 

This type of Christian Socialist will tell us that 
the early Church was socialistic, and that the 
Fathers inculcated pure Socialism. The same sup- 
posed fact is also alleged by Socialists who are not 
Christians, — sometimes by way of reproach 
against Christians who refuse to become Socialists, 
sometimes with a view to enlisting their sympathy. 



230 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Let us examine these supposed facts. And first 
as to the early Church. 

The matter can be settled very simply. We 
have but to glance at the Acts to find that, not 
only was the practice of sharing goods confined 
to Jerusalem, but that it was not imposed upon 
any one. It was perfectly spontaneous, as the 
story of Ananias lets us see. Ananias was not 
punished for keeping his land ("Was it not 
still in thy power ?" asks St. Peter); he was 
punished for telling a lie. To sell one's property 
and give the proceeds to the poor is still a course 
which the Church will encourage. But she will 
not, and she never did, enjoin it. 

"But," urge the Christian Socialists, "the 
early Fathers of the Church taught Socialism." 
I reply that the early Fathers of the Church 
taught nothing of the kind. They taught the 
doctrine of their Master, and no other. 

True, they say strong things about the duty of 
almsgiving. They speak out boldly in defence 
of the poor and suffering; they upbraid the rich 
for their cruelty and selfishness. But this has 
been done by Christian preachers in every age. 
I will undertake to find denunciations hardly less 
vigorous in the writings of Cardinal Manning or 
Bishop Ketteler, — nay, in those of Pope Leo 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 231 

XIII and many another Roman pontiff. On 
this matter much has already been said. My 
point here is that you will not find in the writings 
of the Fathers any support for Socialism, — un- 
less, indeed, you adopt the usual socialist device 
of wresting isolated sentences from their context 
and leaving out inconvenient phrases. Certain 
such hoary extracts are, as a matter of fact, passed 
on from one socialist writer to another. Let me 
give an instance or two. 

We shall find two familiar quotations from the 
Fathers in the Fabian Tract which I have selected 
as a fair sample of Christian Socialist argument. 

" Notice, for instance, " says Mr. Dearmer, 
"how Tertullian appeals to the Socialism of the 
Church as a thing which can be taken for granted 
and which excites the wrath of the pagan world.' ' 
He then quotes from the thirty-ninth chapter of 
that writer's Apology : — 

"And they [the pagans] are angry with us for 
calling each other brethren. . . . The very thing 
which commonly puts an end to brotherhood 
among you [pagans], viz. family, property, is just 
that upon the community of which our brother- 
hood depends. And so we who are one in mind 
and soul, have no hesitation in sharing our posses- 
sions with each other.' 1 



232 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

But we have only to read the rest of the chapter 
in order to see that Tertullian is not talking about 
Socialism or anything like it. For he gives a de- 
tailed description of how this mutual help among 
the Christians was bestowed. He is careful to 
explain that each one gave to the common fund 
"when he wished and only if he wished and if he 
could " (quum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit) . 
There was no compulsion (Nemo compellitur sed 
sponte confert). How on earth can this common 
Christian procedure be called Socialism? It is 
no more socialistic than the modern poor-rate, or 
the Sunday offertory. You must not, like Jules 
Blois, Anatole France, Sabatier, and Renan, read 
your own meaning into the lives of others. You 
must take the clear and obvious interpretation 
of their lives and writings. 

Again, Mr. Dearmer writes (I.e., p. 21, 
note) : — 

"Prudhon's famous saying that ' property is 
robbery/ was anticipated 1600 years ago by St. 
Ambrose: ' Nature therefore created common 
right. Usurpation made private right ' ('De Off./ 
I, 28)." 

This passage (like many similar ones to be found 
in the writings of Fathers and Schoolmen) is a 
positive pitfall for the Socialist who will not take 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 233 

the trouble to ascertain its meaning. " Nature" 
here, as so often, refers to the original dispensation 
of God, the order in which Adam was set before 
the Fall. Original sin shattered that order, and a 
new order had to be set up in its place. Private 
property was introduced, with God's sanction. 
St. Ambrose does not say that " usurpation" made 
private right. He says usurpatio made it. But 
the Latin word usurpatio means " frequent use and 
possession" no less than usurpation. Why does 
Mr. Dearmer ignore those other meanings of the 
word ? St. Ambrose, while reminding the rich of 
their duties, explicitly vindicates the rights of pri- 
vate property. Evidently Mr. Dearmer has not 
read the sublimely eloquent treatise, "De Nabuthe 
Iezraelita," in which the holy Bishop speaks of 
Naboth the Jezrahelite and the vineyard of which 
King Achab wanted, at any cost, to get possession. 

Once more, Socialists are fond of pointing to 
the Religious Orders, and claiming them as con- 
crete examples of Socialism. 

It is true that from some points of view a reli- 
gious order may be called socialistic, or rather 
communistic. But it differs from Socialism, as 
commonly propounded, in several important par- 
ticulars, with the result that it forms no precedent 
from which the modern Socialist may argue. The 



234 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

religious rule is based upon the religious vows, and 
is quite incapable of general application. Reli- 
gious orders consist of men or women who volun- 
tarily cut themselves off from family life, com- 
mercial pursuits, and the like, in order to devote 
themselves to the sanctification of themselves and 
their neighbours. Comparatively few make suit- 
able candidates for a religious order. A long and 
severe training tests the capacity of each. Those 
who, after such training, voluntarily elect to join 
the order, find the life tolerable, not because it is 
naturally pleasant, but because it is supernaturally 
satisfying. Even these may sometimes discover 
that community life is, after all, too great a strain 
upon them, and may apply to the Holy See for a 
dispensation from their vows, and return once more 
to a life in which not so much is required of them. 
True, there is much happiness in religious orders. 
Those who have had a glimpse of the life, and do 
not form their estimate of it from sensational 
paragraphs in the gutter press about " escaped 
nuns," often look wistfully and half enviously 
at the serene and satisfying atmosphere of a 
monastery or a convent, the delicate charity, the 
absence of sordid cares, the security, and the hope 
to be found there. That is all true. But the se- 
cret of this happiness does not He in the economic 



SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS 235 

arrangements of religious orders. It comes from 
their spirit of renunciation and loving service, 
without which life in religion would be unendur- 
able. To attempt to force men who have not 
this spirit into the severe discipline of a monastic 
institution would be the most outrageous tyranny. 
It would be impossible of achievement. Nothing 
but strong ambition for God's glory, and zeal for 
the sanctification of souls ; nothing but a commu- 
nity of spirit, and a tremendous personal love of 
Jesus Christ, could make it possible for religious 
communities to live together under the discipline 
of rule, bearing one another's burdens, and exer- 
cising mutual patience and charity. 

We have seen therefore that the attempt to 
base Socialism on Christianity breaks down all 
along the line. It can only be made by pervert- 
ing the plain sense of the Gospels, misinterpreting 
history, and ignoring the very marked charac- 
teristics of Socialism as an actual movement. 

The position of the Catholic Church in the 
matter has been clear and consistent. She has 
watched the socialist movement in its growth 
(as she has watched every political and social 
movement in its growth for nineteen centuries), 
and she has seen it developing along lines which 
are incompatible with Christian beliefs and 



236 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

standards. She definitely tells her children to 
keep clear of it. Unlike the Bishop of Durham, 
she will not " venture to use the word apart from 
its historical associations" — for she knows well 
to what confusion of ideas such a twisting of 
terminology may lead. Eager as she is to take 
her part in social reform and to establish a Chris- 
tian Democracy, she will not call her efforts by the 
name of Socialism or allow her children to join 
socialist bodies. For the name now stands for a 
definite movement with anti-Christian implica- 
tions. It is idle to urge that the name denotes 
an economic theory only and that the move- 
ment might have proceeded on Christian lines. 
As a matter of fact it has not done so, and we must 
accept the facts as we find them. For the same 
reason the Church does not favour the use of the 
term " Christian Socialism," since it is productive 
of misunderstandings. Leo XIII (" Graves de 
Communi") observed that it had " justly fallen 
into desuetude." Let us define our terms and 
know what we are speaking about. Let us not 
forget that Christianity is one thing and Socialism 
another. The two systems work in opposite di- 
rections, and flow into different termini. Social- 
ism makes for a Paradise beneath the moon, 
Christianity leads to a Heaven beyond the stars. 



VII 

SOCIALISM AND THE RIGHTS OF 
OWNERSHIP 

Society rests upon a triple basis : private 
property is its material basis, the family is its 
natural basis, and religion its supernatural, its 
divine basis. We have already dealt with the 
question of the Family and Religion. We pointed 
out how Socialism, from the very nature of its 
constitution, is destructive of that sublime crea- 
tion of God, the family. Socialists who are true to 
their cause, who with the founders of their cult, 
believe in the material conception of history, 
have no alternative but to tilt against the family 
as it has been understood since Christ first raised 
the sacred contract between man and woman into 
a divine Sacrament, thus making the unity and in- 
dissolubility of the marriage tie the very condition 
of the stability, unity, and harmony of the State. 

Nor can Socialists who are trained efficiently 

in the ethics of their school tolerate religion. 

For them Socialism is their religion, and they will 

have none other. Indeed, they are careful to 

remind us that in Socialism there is no room for 

237 



238 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

"starland religion/' that the only religion in 
which the Socialist puts his trust is Democracy 
working for Democracy, and that the paradise 
for which he is striving is to be found not on a 
star map, but on the map of the world " right 
here." Having treated of the divine and the 
natural foundations on which Society depends for 
its unity, harmony, and stability, we will now 
proceed to speak of the material basis on which 
the State rests, property. 

By private property I understand man's in- 
dividual sovereignty over his acres, his home, his 
capital, his goods and chattels, his inheritance. 

Among all civilized nations private ownership 
has been recognized, and in all civilized nations 
private ownership has been protected under the 
triple buckler of nature, justice, and religion. 
Without it society would lose its chief material 
support, and would slide away like a house under- 
mined by a landslip. 

Property, then, is a necessary basis of society, 
which could not exist without it. By it the family 
clings to the native soil as the tree to the earth by 
its roots. All nations have held it sacredly in- 
violable ; all have clung to it, and we all to-day con- 
sider it so sacred as to protect it with our very lives ; 
we consider it so just that any violation of it on 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 239 

our part would beget within us bitter remorse, 
which nothing but restitution could allay. Such 
being the case, how can any man contest a 
right so legitimate, so sacred to humanity ? How 
in the full splendour of this twentieth-century civili- 
zation, with the sanction of all ages, of all schools, 
all magistrates, all governments, and all religions, 
can men who proclaim themselves civilized call in 
question the right of private productive property ? 
"Far from attacking private property, we ought 
to defend it. Far from suppressing it, we ought 
to extend it. Yes ; let every man by his labour 
and thrift, his earnings and savings, economy and 
virtue, attain this sovereignty wherewith he is 
endowed by the right of private property. The 
ambition to possess and own something is a noble 
ambition, even though it extended only to a parcel 
of land which he must fructify by the sweat of 
his brow, and may transmit by inheritance to his 
children. To suppress private property because 
some may and have abused it is a stupid aberration. 
Is there anything that men may not and have not 
abused? Then suppress everything, even bread 
and meat, for there are some who dig their graves 
with their teeth. But to attempt to equalize 
all men, even the idler and lazy drone, the 
spendthrift, the drunkard, and the gambler, and 



240 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

cry out before that crowd, ' Property is theft ! ' 
this is not simply an error; it is a crime against 
society ; it is shaking the material basis whereon 
society rests." 

Now it is certain, it is a well-known and pal- 
pable fact proclaimed before all the world, that 
Socialism denies the right of private property. It 
blocks the way of Socialism. To employ the 
forcible language of Frederick Engels : " Three 
great obstacles block the way of Socialism, — 
private property, religion, and the present form of 
marriage." Socialism proposes to transfer private 
productive property from the individual to the 
Cooperative Commonwealth. It is a theory ac- 
cording to which people would be happier and 
better were the means of production thus trans- 
ferred. In the concrete it is associated with other 
theories ; but in the abstract " Socialism is a theory 
chiefly concerned with property, and nothing else." 

There is a tendency amongst economic Liberals 
and Socialists alike to apply the name Socialism 
to any proposals for the public control of par- 
ticular means of production. A Catholic who 
favours the nationalization of railways will be 
called a Socialist. A Conservative who suggests 
the municipalization of tramways is liable to be 
denounced by some of his colleagues as a Social- 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 241 

ist. Indeed, any effort to improve the social con- 
dition of the people is sure to be called socialistic. 
When the Archbishop of Paris recently exerted 
his influence to protect the apprentices in the 
barbers' shops, his action was at once labelled 
Socialism by a section of the foreign press. An 
Employers' Liability Act is called Socialism by 
liberal Economists who disapprove of it. An Old 
Age Pensions Act is called Socialism by Socialists 
who welcome it. 

Again, the immediate practical proposals of, 
let us say, a Catholic leader in Germany, may bear 
a striking resemblance to the immediate practical 
proposals of an English socialist leader. Yet the 
latter proposals are socialistic, while the former are 
not. There is a yawning chasm between them. 

Let us endeavour to cut our way through this 
confused tangle and ascertain what Socialism 
really is, and how it differs from Catholic social 
reform. 

We may take Socialists on both sides of the 
Atlantic and interrogate them. It will at once 
be seen that, although they may agree in their 
immediate programme, yet in principle, in ul- 
timate aim, in their general outlook upon life, 
they differ profoundly and are in the sharpest 
antagonism. 



242 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

The object of the Socialist is to get rid of 
private capital. He regards private capital as a 
mischievous thing, unjust in origin and criminal 
in results. His immediate proposals are merely 
the first steps towards its complete abolition. His 
ideal is the absolute transference of all the means 
of production to the State. He may not go so 
far as to say with Prudhon that " property is 
robbery/' — though the saying I have often heard 
repeated in London Parks, in New York Avenues, 
and in miners' camps out West. He may not 
charge all capitalists of formal injustice, but 
he regards the system of private capitalism as 
essentially rotten. It must go — peaceably or 
violently. Private capital is an excrescence or a 
morbid growth in the history of man : or, at the 
very least, it is a phase which must be outgrown. 
It is not permanent. It is no essential part of the 
social structure. It answers to no deep-rooted 
and ineradicable demands of human nature. 

The Catholic, on the other hand, if he really 
represents the sound Catholic tradition (for I do 
not deny that Catholics may be tinged with 
economic Liberalism or bitten with Socialism or 
— of tener still — in a state of muddle about the 
whole matter) — the Catholic, I say, who has 
grasped Catholic principles and has sufficient 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 243 

knowledge to apply them to modern conditions 
may be inclined to admit a large measure of 
socialization or municipalization of certain kinds 
of property. As we saw in our Conference on 
Socialism and the State, a wide increase of State 
action may be admitted and even demanded on 
Catholic principles. 

But the Catholic has principles, and these prin- 
ciples are in direct contradiction to the doctrines 
of Socialism. The Catholic does not regard the 
private ownership of capital as something un- 
natural, or as a mere accident or excrescence. He 
regards it as something proper and normal to man : 
something which is necessary for social harmony 
and stability, and for the satisfying of man's 
deepest needs. 

The Catholic will favour many measures which 
tend to limit the exercise of the right to own capi- 
tal. But he does so, not in order to undermine 
that right, but in order to make it more secure and 
useful. Catholic principles which establish the 
right also prescribe, as we shall see, its limitations. 
The Catholic strives to check the abuses of private 
capital, the Socialist strives to abolish private 
capital altogether. 

There is all the difference between these two 
points of view, and there will ultimately be all the 



244 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

difference between the kind of action which re- 
sults from them. The Catholic limits the right 
of ownership in order to make it more effective. 
The Socialist limits it in order to make it less so. 
If a man has a troublesome tooth which causes 
him pain and upsets his health, he will go to a 
dentist and have it out. In the Middle Ages the 
extraction of teeth was not always remedial. It 
was sometimes punitive. A man might have his 
teeth drawn not because he was in pain, but in 
order that he might be put in pain. The ex- 
traction was not a step towards curing him, but 
a step towards killing him. He was regarded as 
an objectionable person to be weakened and 
brought low and struck at : not as a temporarily 
ailing person to be made strong and healthy. In 
both cases the operation was the same : the ex- 
traction of a tooth with a pair of pincers. But 
who will class the modern dentist with the medi- 
aeval torturer ? Their aims differ, and it is merely 
an accident that their actual procedure is, at one 
stage, alike. Give the torturer his way and he 
will not only pull out the man's teeth but take off 
his head. Give the dentist his desire, and he 
will save the tooth, and make it useful. If he 
cannot save it, he will replace it by another both 
useful and good. 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 245 

Hence, before we can call a man who advocates 
high death duties, or a minimum wage, or old age 
pensions, a Socialist, we must ask a few questions. 
What is he after? What is his next proposal? 
How is this proposal related to his general views 
of human nature, of society, of government? 
Above all, what is his attitude towards private 
capital, — towards all private ownership ? 

Now, in this matter of private capital, the posi- 
tion of the Socialist is clear. He has his principle, 
and that principle is no mere extension of any 
principle admitted by Catholics. To quote Mr. 
Belloc : — 

"The Principle of Socialism is that the means 
of production are morally the property not of 
individuals but of the State : that in the hands 
of individuals, however widely diffused, such prop- 
erty exploits the labour of others, and that such 
exploitation is wrong. No exceptions in practice 
destroy the validity of such a proposition. It is 
the prime conception which makes a Socialist 
what he is. The men who hold this doctrine fast, 
who see it clearly, and who attempt to act upon it 
and to convert others to it are the true Socialists. 
They are numerous, and what is more, they are 
the core of the whole socialist movement. It is 
their uncompromising dogma which gives it its 



246 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

vitality, for never could so vast a revolution be 
effected in human habit as Socialists in general 
pretend to effect, were there not ready to act for 
it men possessed of a definite and absolute creed.' ' 
("The Church and Socialism.") 

Now against this socialist dogma the Catholic 
Church has set her face like a flint. She bans 
and condemns it. She herself may on occasion 
say very strong things to the capitalist, as her 
Divine Founder did before her. Early Fathers, 
the mediaeval Doctors, have, like the Popes in all 
ages, insisted much upon the duties and respon- 
sibilities of wealth. But they have never, even 
amidst the utmost corruptions of capitalism, 
denied the right to own private capital. On the 
contrary, they have strongly upheld and vindi- 
cated it as being something inextricably bound 
up with human welfare, as a condition of normal 
civic freedom. 

Attempts are often made by Socialists to enlist 
the Fathers of the Church in their cause. And 
there is no doubt that, taken out of the context, 
many passages from the Fathers of the Church, 
notably from the writings of St. Clement of Alexan- 
dria, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Gregory Nazian- 
zen, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and 
St. Chrysostom smack of Socialism. But let 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 247 

us make no mistake about the point of view from 
which they speak. They were not teachers of 
economics, but of ethics. And for the most part 
they are dealing with questions not of justice, 
but of charity. Furthermore, many of the pas- 
sages cited by Socialists occur in sermons, and a 
preacher, whose business it is to create an immediate 
impression ; to make his listeners hear, understand, 
and feel ; in a word to induce them to open their 
ears, to open their minds, and to open their hearts, 
and it may be, even to open their hands also, is 
allowed the use of language which in a writer 
on economics would be not only out of place, but 
wrong. Many of the Fathers, so triumphantly 
quoted by Socialists, were the sons of wealthy 
proprietors, and were themselves owners of private 
property and capital. 

Later on I will endeavour to exhibit the strength 
of the Catholic argument even against those who 
will not admit the existence of revelation or 
supernatural guidance in the Catholic Church. 
I will undertake to show how strong is her case 
even from the mere historical standpoint. 

But before doing so let me set out, first the 
teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to 
property, and secondly the mischievous doctrine 
of economic Liberalism upon the same subject — 



248 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

a doctrine against which Socialism is in great part 
a natural protest and reaction. 

According to Catholic teaching the right to 
own property is a natural right. This right is 
prior to society, and is based on the will of God. 
It is the will of God that men should own property 
and even productive property. Private capital 
is not the result of mere social convention ; it is 
part of a natural and divine plan. 

How is this divine character of the right of 
property established ? In just the same way as the 
divine character of civil authority is established. 
That is to say, we may ascertain God's will in 
regard to it by examining human nature as it is 
revealed to us in history. Man has been set upon 
this earth in order to develop his material, intel- 
lectual, and spiritual capacities. With the duty 
of developing them goes the right of developing 
them. Now the Catholic Church maintains, and 
has ever maintained, that the possession of prop- 
erty (including capital) is a normal condition of 
this development. Man not only has a deep- 
rooted and natural desire to own property, but, 
as a rule, and speaking generally, if he is to develop 
according to the designs of God, he must own 
property. 

Hence it is the desire of the Catholic Church 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 249 

that as many men as possible should be pro- 
prietors : that they should not only procure the 
necessities of life from day to day, but also control 
such means of wealth as will ensure their perma- 
nent provision. 

The justification for this doctrine has frequently 
been set forth by representative Catholic writers 
in all ages, and may here be briefly recalled. 

Let us look first at the individual. We have in 
a previous Conference seen that the individual is 
something more than a cell in the social organism. 
True, he is a citizen with duties to society, but 
this does not exhaust his whole personality. He 
does not exist for the State : he is not wholly and 
in every particular subordinate to the State. As 
an individual, and as the member of a family, he 
has rights and duties which are independent of 
and prior to the State. He has an immortal 
soul directly created by God; he has a direct 
mission from God ; and hence he has certain 
obligations and rights with which no State may 
interfere. 

Taking man as an individual, therefore, we find 
that he has certain needs and requirements, and 
hence certain duties. He is bound to preserve 
his life, for that life is not his own ; it is only 
lent him ; it is God's. Hence he has the right to 



250 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

acquire, keep, control, and use whatever is necessary 
for the maintenance of that life. 

This is a primary right, before which all other 
rights must give way. The Catholic Church 
teaches that a man who is in extreme need of the 
means of subsistence may take, from whatever 
source, what is necessary to keep him from actual 
starvation. A starving man who cannot other- 
wise obtain food may walk into a baker's shop and 
help himself to as much bread as is necessary to 
support life. He may do so openly or secretly, 
and in neither case will his action be one of theft. 
What is more, the baker has no right to prevent 
him, for the starving man is taking what he has 
a right to ; to prevent his action would be an act 
of injustice. It may be illegal, and he would be 
taken up for doing so, but though it might be a 
deed against law, it would not be a sin against 
God. 

This is the plain teaching of the Catholic Church 
enunciated by St. Thomas, and found in every 
Catholic textbook of moral theology. (II. II ae , 
I. 66, a. 7.) 

Man, then, has a right to live. He has a right 
to procure the necessities of life. He has a right to 
satisfy his absolute needs. 

Now man's needs recur. He eats, and after a 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 251 

while hunger returns. He requires shelter to-day 
and will require it to-morrow. To meet a re- 
curring need he must procure permanent resources. 
Nature puts sources of supply within his reach : 
man must take them and control them. If they 
are not taken and controlled, they will not supply 
his permanent needs. He will not be secure, he 
will not be able to meet recurring needs, unless 
he can control the source of his supplies. Nature 
bids him provide for himself the means of pro- 
duction. 

Moreover, we cannot bid a man limit his pos- 
sessions to what is barely required for the satis- 
faction of the ordinary recurring needs. He is 
subject to accidents and to illness : he has to face 
the prospect of old age, and ought himself to make 
provision for it, and not depend on a pension. 
Hence, if he is to be put beyond the reach of desti- 
tution, he must acquire more than is necessary for 
the satisfaction of his immediate wants. 

Again, man, endowed as he is with intellect and 
free will, is not a mere machine destined for a 
definite and limited measure of work and incapable 
of doing more. He has faculties which he can 
cultivate, potentialities which he can develop. 
And with this God-given power of self-develop- 
ment comes the right of self-development. Man 



252 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

must labour : but he does not exist merely that he 
may labour. He is no slave of his fellow-men or of 
society. He has not been sent into the world merely 
to contribute so many yards of cloth, or so many 
piles of bricks, or so many tons of coal, or so many 
yards of stone to the world's wealth. He has the 
right to cultivate his mind, to adorn his life in- 
tellectually, artistically, and morally. But this 
requires a certain economic independence. Here 
again we have the justification of the ownership 
of capital. 

Now, when we turn from man as an individual 
to man as the father of a family, the justification 
becomes immeasurably more striking. 

Of the institution of the family something has 
been said in a previous Conference. It has been 
shown that the family is a " natural" institution in 
the sense already explained ; that is to say, it is from 
God, and is no institution invented by man. But 
if we accept the institution of the family as some- 
thing necessary and permanent, we encounter spe- 
cial reasons for regarding the institution of private 
capital as sharing in the necessity and permanence 
of the family. The point is insisted upon in the 
Encyclical "Rerum Novarum," of Pope Leo XIII. 

" That right of property, therefore, which has been 
proved to belong naturally to individual persons 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 253 

must likewise belong to a man in his capacity of 
head of a family ; nay, such a person must possess 
this right so much the more clearly in proportion 
as his position multiplies his duties. For it is a 
most sacred law of nature that a father should 
provide food and all necessaries for those whom 
he has begotten; and, similarly, nature dictates 
that a man's children, who carry on, so to speak, 
and continue his personality, should be by him 
provided with all that is needful to keep them- 
selves honourably from want and misery amid 
the uncertainties of this mortal life. Now in no 
other way can a father effect this except by the 
ownership of lucrative property, which he can 
transmit to his children by inheritance. A family, 
no less than a State, is, as we have said, a true 
society, governed by a power within its sphere, 
that is to say, by the father. Provided, therefore, 
the limits, which are prescribed by the very pur- 
poses for which it exists, are not transgressed, the 
family has at least equal rights with the State in 
the choice and pursuit of the things needful to it 
for its preservation and its just liberty." 

But here the Socialist will raise an objection. 

"All that you have proved so far," he will say, 
"is, that man has permanent wants, and that pro- 
vision must be made for them. With this I agree : 



254 SOCIALISM AND_ CHRISTIANITY 

but it is not an argument against Socialism. You 
have shown that there must be capital. I admit 
it. You have shown that the sources of supply- 
must be controlled. I do not doubt it. But you 
have not yet justified private capital. You have 
not justified the private capitalist. My proposal 
is not to abolish capital but to transfer it, from the 
individual and from groups of individuals, to the 
community. My desire is not that the sources of 
supply should pass out of all control. My desire 
is that they should be controlled by the representa- 
tives of the people, in a word, by the whole Com- 
munity." 

"As for your arguments," the Socialist will con- 
tinue, "they can be turned against you. You say 
that a man has a right to live, a right to satisfy his 
recurring needs, a right to develop his personality. 
Is he able to exercise that right in modern capital- 
istic society ? Can our destitute poor be said to 
live? Are there not millions of men and women 
in America and England who live from hand to 
mouth, and are not certain of getting their next 
meal? As for development of personality and 
cultivation of the mind, how many can hope to 
dream of it? " 

The Socialist will say: "Look at Pittsburg. 
Take those living there in Painter's Row — a 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 255 

cluster of houses near Painter's Steel Mill. What 
have you read about them ? ' In one apartment 
a man, his wife and a baby, and two boarders 
slept in one room, and five boarders occupied two 
beds in an adjoining room. . . . Not one house 
in the entire settlement had any provision for sup- 
plying drinking water to its tenants. . . . They 
went to an old pump in the mill yard, — 360 
steps from the farthest apartment, down seventy- 
five stairs. This town pump was the sole supply 
of drinking water within reach of ninety-one 
households comprising 568 persons. . . . An- 
other row of one-family houses had a curious 
wooden chute arrangement on the back porches, 
down which waste water was poured that ran 
through open drains in the rear yard to the open 
drain between this row of houses and the next. 
. . . They carried other things besides waste 
water, — filth of every description was emptied 
down these chutes, for these six families, and three 
families below on the first floor, had no closet ac- 
commodations and were living like animals.' " 

If no other facts than these were cited, the 
title of the chapter, "Low Wages and Standards," 
would be more than justified by the lowness of 
the wages and standards of Pittsburg, — "the city 
of a thousand millionnaires." But while the picture 



256 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

presented in Pittsburg is extreme, it is by no means 
exceptional. Similar descriptions, I am told, might 
be detailed of living conditions in the slumdoms 
of New York, the stockyards district of Chicago, 
the industrial towns of Pennsylvania, and the 
coal fields of West Virginia. 

There is a reflex of these low standards of wages 
and of living, — a reflex on the children, a fact 
strikingly illustrated by the situation in Chicago. 
Two years ago the Chicago Board of Education 
investigated underfeeding among Chicago school 
children. The results of the investigation are 
thus reported : — 

"Five thousand children who attend the schools 
of Chicago are habitually hungry. . . . 

"I further report that 10,000 other children in 
the city — while not such extreme cases as the 
aforesaid — do not have sufficient nourishing 
food. . . . 

" There are several thousand more children under 
six who are also underfed, and who are too young 
to attend school. 

"The question of food is not the only question 
to be considered. Many children lack shoes and 
clothing. Many have no beds to sleep in. They 
cuddle together on hard floors. The majority 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 257 

of the indigent children live in damp, unclean, or 
overcrowded homes that lack proper ventilation 
and sanitation. Here, in the damp, ill-smelling 
basements, there is only one thing regarded as 
cheaper than rent — and that is the life of the 
child." (" Social Adjustment," p. 74.) 

The objicient will continue, "No, the object of 
the socialist regime is to make man and woman 
secure, to let them feel that they are sure of food 
and shelter next week, and next year, and for the 
rest of their lives. Socialism will make it possible 
for men and women to develop their personalities, 
to cultivate their minds, to expand their sym- 
pathies and interests. Hence the arguments you 
have employed are arguments against Capitalism, 
but in favour of Socialism." 

To this objection I reply as follows : — 

If it could be proved that private capital is 
unable to supply the recurring needs of the human 
race and to secure the other results I have men- 
tioned, then clearly my arguments would not tell 
in favour of private capital. And if at the same 
time it could be proved that Socialism is able to 
fulfil its promises, then, I admit, my arguments 
would tell in favour of Socialism. 

But, as I shall proceed to show, private capital 



258 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

is capable of supplying all the needs of the race, 
while Socialism is not. Hence the above argu- 
ments tell on behalf of Capitalism and against 
Socialism. 

Even were Socialism able to perform what it 
promises, the foregoing argument would be valid, 
— not indeed against Socialism, but against 
propositions frequently laid down by Socialists. 

Do not Socialists often declare that private 
capital is an essentially unjust thing? Now it 
must be remembered that a socialist regime has 
never yet been established. The world has had 
to get on all these thousands of years without 
Socialism, and meanwhile communities have had 
to live. Now the foregoing arguments have 
proved that some control of capital is necessary. 
Hence in the absence of public control it was 
absolutely necessary to have private control. But 
a necessity justifies itself : hence private Capital- 
ism is vindicated from the charge of injustice. 

"But at any rate," says the Socialist, "Capital- 
ism has broken down now, and Socialism is the 
only system which can do the work that Capitalism 
can no longer do." 

I answer that Capitalism has not broken down. 
I admit — with Leo XIII — that modern Capi- 
talism is bristling with abuses. It has got out of 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 259 

hand. It requires drastic treatment. But Capital- 
ism as a system does not stand condemned. Its 
abuses may be cured, as I shall indicate in my 
final Conference. Hence Capitalism is justified 
by the arguments which I have employed. 

But what of Socialism ? Could Socialism do the 
work for which Capitalism is declared to be incom- 
petent and unequal? It could not. To prove 
this I will pass to another series of arguments 
which you may discover in the Encyclical " Rerum 
No varum " of Leo XIII, and which may be traced 
back through St. Thomas of Aquin to Aristotle. 

This line of argument is based, as Pere Antoine 
points out, upon a very keen social psychology. 
It asserts that the private ownership of capital 
is required for the maintenance of social order, 
the securing of peace, and the progress of civili- 
zation. It appeals to certain primary facts about 
human nature which the Socialist too often over- 
looks. Let us consider one or two of these facts. 

In the first place, we notice that men are more 
careful about their own property than they are 
about the property of others. A friend lately 
married writes to me, saying, that " wedded life 
makes one more careful of all goods and chattels 
than ever I thought could be possible." This ad- 
mission may sound strange, but it is true and must 



260 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

be recognized. Could we transform the characters 
of men, a socialist regime would have something to 
be said in its favour. But Socialists seem to as- 
sume the improvement of character under their 
system without indicating any features of that 
system which are likely to produce it. Taking 
men as they are, we discover that they usually 
require the stimulus of private ownership before 
they will put forth their best work. Public ad- 
ministration is apt to be marked by wastefulness ; 
municipal wastefulness has almost passed into a 
proverb. Give a man a share in a business, or in 
a piece of land and he will set all his wits to work 
discovering methods of economy of improve- 
ment, and of labour-saving devices, and so forth. 
Business firms everywhere recognize this. As a 
public official in a similar position he would not 
have the same spur to enterprise. 

Now it is clear that disaster is in store for that 
society of which the members cease to exert them- 
selves to the utmost in the development of their 
country's resources. I need not elaborate this 
point. Nations are no longer self-contained and 
self-sufficient. The markets of the world are con- 
fluent, and the life of a nation depends on its 
being able to maintain a very high level of in- 
dustry, enterprise, and resourcefulness. Never be- 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 261 

fore was the stimulus of private capital so neces- 
sary for national prosperity and security. 

Again, the stimulus of private capital is re- 
quired for another social reason. Not only is it 
necessary as a direct condition of adequate pro- 
duction, but it is necessary on account of its re- 
action on character. The welfare of society rests 
not only upon economic considerations, but upon 
character. The object of civil society is not 
only to produce wealth, but to develop character. 
That the citizen should be industrious, sober, 
manly, diligent, is to the advantage not only of the 
citizen himself but of the society in which he lives. 
These qualities not only help to produce wealth, 
but they are wealth : they are among a nation's 
most valuable assets. 

Now these qualities are best sustained by a wide 
distribution of private capital. I do not say that 
they flourish particularly well under the present 
capitalistic regime. On the contrary, they are at 
present stunted and crippled. But the reason 
of this is that the present capitalist regime is, as 
Pope Leo XIII has told us, in an abnormal and 
diseased condition. It is reeking with abuses. 
But the abuses are not inseparable from Capital- 
ism itself. They are the growth, like weeds, of 
neglect, and have arisen from a betrayal of Chris- 



262 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

tian principles. They can be cured by a return 
to Christian principles. They cannot be cured 
by Socialism. 

They can be cured by a return to Catholic prin- 
ciples, because the Catholic doctrine of the rights 
of property is also a doctrine of the limitations 
and due use of property. Impress these principles 
upon society by means of legislation, private 
effort, and the influence of religion, and you will 
have a regime of property which will be free from 
current abuses, and will promote the good qualities 
which I have mentioned. Such a regime would 
heighten the sense of responsibility, and would lead 
men to pull themselves together, and to put forth 
their best work. Lay more stress on the family 
and the household, and on family capital, and you 
supply strong motives for persistent devoted effort. 

Such results cannot be secured by Socialism. 
At first sight, indeed, Socialism would seem to 
make for a higher altruism. It is urged that just 
as society is a greater thing than the family, so 
it is more likely to call forth nobler and more un- 
selfish effort. Socialists sometimes protest against 
the selfishness of family feeling, and claim that 
Socialism will widen men's horizon, and substitute 
unselfish work for society, in place of selfish com- 
petition on behalf of one's own family. 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 263 

Does not such a claim show a strange ignorance 
of human nature ? Man's powers are limited. In 
all cases he has to proceed from the less to the 
greater. He has to proceed from what is near and 
known to what is remote and unknown. He has 
to proceed from the particular to the universal. 
Citizenship is not a lesson that is easily learned. 
It must first be practised on a small scale in the 
family. A man must, as a rule, learn to administer 
his own private property before he can be trusted 
to administer public property. He must learn 
the lessons of honesty, industry, temperance, pru- 
dence, unselfishness, and these lessons are best 
learned in the administration of private capital. 
The Socialist may call this statement a paradox, 
but I believe it to be true. History points to it. 
Where do we find the trustworthy public men, the 
incorruptible, prudent, conscientious administra- 
tors, the painstaking legislators, the good citizens ? 
We find them among those who have been trained 
in the administration of honestly acquired private 
capital, in the ordering of the family homestead. 
I do not refer to a class of men who to-day are 
piling up rapid fortunes by questionable means : 
for they violate Christian principles both in the 
acquisition and in the use of their wealth. They 
are " grafters." I refer to those who in the Chris- 



264 SOCIALISM AXD CHRISTIANITY 

tian spirit regard themselves as merely stewards of 
their possessions, and who in the administration 
of that wealth learn the lesson of social altruism. 

Not so long ago I sent an urchin, who had passed 
through his parochial school, into the service of an 
English shipping merchant. He started as an 
errand boy. His Presbyterian employer called 
him into his office and asked him if I had given 
him any advice or directions to secure his climb- 
ing up in the business. 

The boy answered that I had given "a whole 
lot" of advice, and that I had ended it by saying 
that he would find most of what I had said written 
up in tabloid form on the office door: "Push," 
which, when expanded, spelt out: be "Punctual, 
Upright, Sober, and Honest." The merchant was 
satisfied, and told the lad that if only he would 
put that advice into practice, he might most likely 
one day become a partner in that business. The 
boy is learning to become a steward of property. 

Socialism would, I fear, be likely to breed a race 
of extravagant administrators. If no individuals 
owned capital, there would be no check on reckless 
spending. The salaried citizen would clamour 
for a higher salary without stopping to think 
whether the nation could afford to give it to him ; 
he might help himself ; he might help his friends ; 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 265 

he might create jobs for adventurers. He might 
abuse his position of trust and live on " graft." 

And this leads me to another consideration. 

It is a crime against society to weaken social 
stability. Our efforts must be to secure solidarity, 
to effect a unity of interest among the different 
classes of society, to weld all men together into a 
healthy and compact organism. We must not 
allow ourselves to be exposed to the danger of 
revolutions, as though we were a South American 
Republic. 

Now social stability is undoubtedly fostered 
by the multiplication of capitalists in the country. 
The Socialist may object that the present capital- 
istic regime is unstable, and that we are in danger 
of revolutions. I admit it. But the reason is 
not because capitalists exist. The reason is be- 
cause there are not enough capitalists. Capital 
is not sufficiently distributed. If we want to 
make society stable, we must give as many men as 
possible a stake in the country. The man who 
owns a home is not so likely to be a revolutionary 
as the lodger. The man who possesses a farm or 
a share in the industrial concern for which he 
works, is not so likely to welcome violent upheavals 
as the shifting wage-earner. The reason of this 
increased stability which follows the wide dis- 



266 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

tribution of capital is no mere selfish one. Man 
does not strive for peace and counteract revolu- 
tion merely because revolution might threaten his 
own property. But that property is the link which 
binds him to the nation. It brings his citizenship 
to a focus and gives it tangible shape. National 
peace and stability rest upon local peace and sta- 
bility. The strength and virtue of society wells 
up like the sap in springtime from the land. At- 
tach men to the land, give them a share in it, let 
them control it individually (either directly as 
small landowners or indirectly as shareholders in 
industrial concerns) and you give them character 
and stability. The weakness and peril of modern 
European nations lie not only in the " Industrial 
Workers of the World/' but in the growing host 
of shifting proletarians. When Romans owned 
their farms Rome was strong. When they de- 
pended on public bread the nation was ripe for 
destruction. 

How are we to account for the rush of all the 
nations of the earth to Canada and to the United 
States ? In some districts you find a community 
made up of thirty-three nationalities and more. 
For the most part, among themselves, they talk, 
for a generation or two, the language of the land 
whence they came, they retain their ancient 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 267 

customs, have their own clubs, and guilds, and 
in some instances publish their own daily paper. 
Yet all these naturally conflicting elements become 
welded into one nationality, they become law- 
abiding American citizens, and rally to the star 
spangled banner with a readiness and loyalty 
beyond all praise. If you want the all-explana- 
tory reason of this admirable catholicity of spirit, 
I need only remind you of the earth-pervading 
instinct in man for private and productive owner- 
ship. Just as the peasant in Ireland and the 
crofter in Scotland want to own their own bit of 
land, so all these immigrants, or whatever other 
name you may call them, swarm to the North 
American continent because they see the oppor- 
tunity of becoming proprietors, capitalists. 

In most of the Provinces of Canada, and of the 
States of America, people want to own their homes, 
or their homesteads, or their farms. They want 
to make their own businesses, and to become pri- 
vate owners of capital. 

The same ambition is to be found among the 
aboriginal Indians. Every member of an Indian 
tribe is the owner of private property. As soon 
as the " papoose" appears, to it is given a horse, 
or a cow, or a sewing machine, or a dog, or a gun, 
or what not, so that by the time the young brave 



268 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

has attained manhood, he may find himself the 
owner of considerable property, all of which, in 
days gone by, would have been destroyed at 
his death. In a reservation in Montana every 
member of the Blackfeet was assigned by the 
government 320 acres of land. On the day on 
, which the allotting agent arrived at the reser- 
vation a child was born. Xeedless to say, to 
that infant was given, no less than to the Chief, 
its own 320 acres. 

I submit that grave objections maybe brought 
against Socialism on the score that it would lead to 
evictions innumerable, that it would prejudice the 
healthy development of character, and threaten 
social stability. There are other serious economic 
difficulties against it, such as the enormous expense 
of public administration which it would entail, but 
these difficulties have frequently been set forth 
in books dealing with Socialism, and I need not 
consider them here. 

I am concerned rather with specifically religious 
and moral objections to Socialism; and these I 
must develop further in the next Conference. 

Among the many questions that have been sent 
me during the past month by Socialists, the follow- 
ing difficulties, as not unworthy of attention, I 
now propose to deal with briefly: — 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 269 

(1) " Has a capitalist, or employer of labour, any 
claim in justice upon that surplus value remain- 
ing after working expenses of a business are paid, 
and the workmen's wages are paid and the employer 
himself is reasonably paid? Besides, is it not 
true that labour is the only source of value ? " To 
the first part of this question I offer the following 
solution : In strict justice the surplus value re- 
ferred to belongs to the employer, or capitalist, 
in the case ; and it is for him to determine to 
what purpose to put it. Of course I presume 
that labour in the case referred to receives a liv- 
ing and not a sweated wage. The first duty of 
capital is to pay a decent remuneration for work 
done. 

In spite of legislation against the sweater I 
am told that in the United States to-day " con- 
siderably more than two-thirds of the girls and 
women who work for a living in stores and factories 
are paid less than a living wage.' 7 "In Massa- 
chusetts 65 per cent of the candy workers, 40 per 
cent of the laundry workers, 40 per cent of cotton 
workers, get less than six dollars a week." With 
revelations such as these before us, there can be no 
question as to where surplus values ought to find 
their way. But given a living wage, then the 
residual portion of surplus value referred to in the 



270 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

objection may in strict justice be spent upon pro- 
ductive works, improved machinery, enlarged 
premises, — all of which indirectly benefit labour as 
well as capital. What might be best to do with 
this residual surplus value would be to create co- 
operative work, or better still, profit-sharing ven- 
tures, and best of all, copartnerships. Speaking 
on this subject as a set-off against the tactics of 
Socialists, a modern writer well says that: — 

"We cannot pronounce that copartnership of 
itself, unaccompanied by some change of spirit 
on the part of rich people, would finally allay dis- 
content. But, what is immeasurably important, 
it would start the reconstitution of society on 
lines that are sound, businesslike, evolutionary, 
instead of revolutionary, " and found to be in oper- 
ation in some American firms of standing. Who 
would not prefer it to the absorption of wealth by 
the State and the State officials ? Who would not 
prefer it to the recurrence of devastating strikes ? 

"Where a workingman draws a share in the 
profits of industry, he knows that this share at 
least is not going to buy some rich man a new car. 
When times are good, he has tangible cause for 
rejoicing. When times are bad, he does not suffer 
alone. He has perpetually a strong interest against 
any event which injures the prosperity of his trade. 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 271 

And, in his most rapacious mood, the method 
he must choose for increasing his share of good 
things cannot be a method that would involve 
his own property in ruin." 

There are difficulties in the path, and it does not 
lead straight to a heaven upon earth. Like any 
other institution of society, it is unworkable with- 
out good-will. Like any other system, its success 
would depend on character. 

"But we can claim that it offers to labour a 
stake in the country, a stake in organized society, 
and the least dangerous line along which to advance 
such further demands as labour may feel con- 
strained to make." 

As to the second part of the objection, namely, 
that to labour alone belongs the profits of a busi- 
ness. My only answer to this objection is, that 
on the face of it, it is as monstrous as it is absurd. 
Take a gramophone, a song, a novel, or any other 
commodity; their exchange values depend not only 
upon what mental and manual labor have been ex- 
pended upon the article in question, but upon de- 
mand and supply, upon utility to the buyer, upon 
the rarity of the article, and upon its quality. 
A gramophone's value depends upon records, 
upon the make, upon the demand, upon the 
supply, upon the utility to the purchaser — and 



272 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

also upon the cost to the maker and the wages 
paid to the mechanic who turned it out. 

(2) "Why should artists and poets, scientists 
and philosophers, be better paid for their work 
than blacksmiths, bricklayers, ploughmen, and 
carpenters ? The former need no better food than 
the latter, and they are less necessary to the com- 
munity. All should be paid alike." 

This difficulty savours of a Fabian, who speaks 
of the artistic classes generally as "the high- 
priests of the modern Moloch." The artist, it 
is true, is not needed as much as the carpenter 
for the material well-being of the community. 
For the support of physical life the baker is more 
necessary than the painter. But there are other 
view-points besides these of the mere materialist. 
A skilled labourer who is making a frame for a por- 
trait is not, I take it, troubled with the artistic 
temperament of the painter who fills in the canvas. 
Usually a joiner's work does not interfere with his 
sleep, health, and appetite. He is, as a rule, if 
not in rude health, at least normal. The artist 
certainly is not; he has to pay heavily for his 
genius. I myself have seen artists who, while 
engaged upon the canvas, have had more than 
once to leave their work, sick under the nervous 
strain caused by the artistic temperament. It 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 273 

is all very well to proclaim with the Fabian Shaw 
that an artist should be paid and fed no better 
than a ploughman, but the result of such treat- 
ment would be that you would have to get on 
with no better painters than signpost artists. 
Fine temperaments, as I once heard the late Laure- 
ate, Lord Tennyson, say, require fine things and fine 
treatment. Under a socialist regime there would 
be no room for the artist, his occupation would be 
gone. In a socialist atmosphere he could not live. 
He would fret to death like a swan in a duck pond. 

(3) a Why should not the State be the sole pro- 
prietor of all the instruments of the production 
and the distribution of a country's wealth ? Why 
should we not have State ownership, say, of all 
Railways, etc., as well as of all our Mails ? If the 
Post-office is so successful, why should not other 
industries be equally so under State ownership ? " 

This difficulty is a very plausible one; but it 
is without legs on which to travel. Before citing 
the Post-office as their example, Socialists must 
prove, what they cannot, that to the Post-office 
is due the production of all the mails that are con- 
veyed by that service. This they cannot do. 
Further, they must prove that the Post-office dis- 
tributes the mail, which it certainly does not. 
It contracts with Railway and Steamship Com- 



274 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

panies to carry what it has not produced and what 
it cannot distribute. As for State-owned railways, 
they compare very.Iunfavourably.with those owned 
by private companies. In Switzerland and Italy, 
in Australia and New Zealand, not to lengthen 
the list, have not Railway Systems owned and op- 
erated by the government been financial failures ? 
They know nothing of the success of the Railway 
ventures in the United States. If Socialists urge 
that the State Railways of Germany, at any 
rate, are worked at a profit, I will remind them that 
they charge an average freight rate about double 
that of the United States. We are assured that 
if the Railways in the States were government 
property, worked on German lines, they would 
cost the country four million dollars a day more 
than they do at present. Finally, observe this, 
that the State-owned iron road, known as the 
Western Railway of France, has the reputation of 
being the worst managed in Europe. " Last year 
its loss was over thirteen millions of dollars." If 
we are to have good service, cheap rates, and high 
wages, we must also have competition, the outcome 
not of State but of private ownership. 

(4) Another Socialist writes to ask me if there is 
any solution to the following difficulty. He tells 
me that this is a question proposed by the Hon. 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 275 

Charles Russell, and is unanswerable. The question 
is this : " If it be lawful for the State to tax prop- 
erty at all, why is it not lawful for the State to take 
that property altogether ? Practically it takes the 
lives of its soldier-citizens by sending them to the 
field of battle. If their lives may be taken, surely 
their property may be socialized." Before answer- 
ing this difficulty I beg to state that I was present 
when Mr. Russell made the speech from which 
this question has been borrowed. In that speech 
Mr. Russell declared more than once that he was 
no Socialist. It is a libel upon him to say that 
he has identified himself with socialist doctrine. 
The questions which in that speech he proposed 
were uttered with the intention of eliciting the 
opinions of others rather than of expressing his 
own. Mr. Russell is too well acquainted with the 
Christian idea of the State and of its functions 
ever to have put forth as his own the sentiment ex- 
pressed in the objection with which I now propose 
to deal. 

The State, let it be remembered, is an institu- 
tion set up by man not to appropriate but to 
protect him and his property, not therefore to ab- 
sorb but to assist him by giving him the oppor- 
tunity of doing what he ought to do, but what he 
cannot do without the protection and assistance 



276 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of the State. It is the function of the State to 
look to the well-being of all its citizens, to prevent 
the clash of individual interests, and to provide 
as far as may be for the temporal welfare of the 
community as a whole. Clearly this cannot be 
done without legitimate taxation of property. 
Not even the State can carry on its various works 
without wage-paying, etc. How, let me ask, is 
the State to be financed except by a well-ordered 
system of taxation? What become of the high- 
ways, of the police and magistracy, of the Navy 
and Army, if the treasury is depleted ? Cut off 
the supplies coming from taxation and you para- 
lyze the action of the State. We tax property to 
protect and assist it, not to appropriate and as- 
similate it. If we send our armies into battle, 
it is not that they may be shot down, but that they 
may defend our homes and our property, and pro- 
tect our country from becoming the spoil of our 
enemies. The analogy drawn between the army 
and the socialization of private property will not 
work. 

Let me close this series of difficulties by an 
extract from Pope Leo's Encyclical on the Con- 
dition of the Working Classes. He writes that : 
"The foremost duty of the Rulers of the State 
should be to make sure that the laws and institu- 



SOCIALISM AND RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP 277 

tions, the general character and administration 
of the Commonwealth, shall be such as of them- 
selves to realize public well-being and private 
prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise 
statesmanship and the work of the heads of the 
State." 

May these wise words of the sovereign Pontiff 
sink into our hearts and draw forth from them the 
spirit of Christian citizenship which recognizes the 
duties no less than the rights of private ownership. 



VIII 

SOCIALISM AND THE DUTIES OF 
OWNERSHIP 

On my arrival in the United States, the very 
first number of the International Socialist Review 
which came my way was decked out in a brill- 
iantly coloured cover-design which I will attempt 
to describe. The picture was cleverly drawn and 
was intended to symbolize as well as to synopsize 
the teaching of Socialism. 

Imagine, then, a pyramidal structure, supported 
on the shoulders of men, women, and children, 
who, bowed and groaning under the weight crush- 
ing out their lives, are attempting feebly to cry 
out : "We work for all ; " "We feed all." 

On the first stage above the base of this pyramid 
thus supported by the proletariat is depicted a 
scene in which capitalists and other employers 
of labour are having a good time, — feasting, ca- 
rousing, and loitering in luxury and idleness. The 
motto emblazoned across this mise en scene is 
significant : "We eat for you." 

278 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 279 

On the stage immediately above this we are 
shown naval and military forces clad in the garb of 
battle, standing behind their guns and awaiting 
the order to fire upon any section of the com- 
munity which should dare to revolt against the 
tyranny of capital. The motto inscribed across 
this picture is : " We shoot at you." Qn the next 
platform above this tragic scene there stand out 
priests, and an altar with book and candles and 
censer, all of which is to be interpreted by the text 
written across the floor: "We fool you." Next 
to this comes the top stage, on which we recognize 
kaisers and kings, with other potentates, who 
owe their position to such servile creatures 
as the capitalist and the priest of the Catholic 
Church. On the apex of this wicked pyramidal 
frontispiece stands the money-bag, "the God and 
Ruler of all." 

We all know that there is nothing so telling 
in a picture gallery as the canvas with a story. 
To it more particularly the wage-earner is drawn. 
The editors of the /. S. R., then, have made use 
of this time-famed method of teaching in order 
to convey their own diabolical doctrines of class 
hatred to the breadwinner, who is told that prop- 
erty is robbery, and that he, with his fellows, is 
being exploited, crushed, and ground to the dust, 



280 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

not only by capitalists, but even still more by 
the Church, whose proud boast it is that it is the 
direct and immediate pillar support of law, order, 
and authority in the State. 

Capitalist exploitation, we are assured by 
Victor Berger, is better than Roman Catholic 
exploitation. What blocks the way of Socialism 
is Catholicism. 

When lecturing in the Eldorado district, I 
visited a prison, where I came across an English 
Socialist serving his time for having " pinched " 
nuggets. He had been suspected, so, impressions 
having been first of all taken, a certain number 
of nuggets were hidden away in the claim where he 
was mining as a wage-worker. 

The missing gold treasures were discovered in 
his mouth and on his person. He was forced to 
disgorge them and to pay the penalty of two years 
in the penitentiary. He had socialist doctrine 
and training to thank for being in jail. He pro- 
tested that he had only taken his own, and less 
than his share. In fact, he had reclaimed what 
had been stolen from him and his by that robber 
class called private property owners. 

The Mounted Police had done the prisoner a good 
service, for when I saw him the second time, he 
asked me to write home to Whitechapel and tell 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 281 

his wife that he had "quit the comrade gang/' and 
he added: "You will be sure, Father, to tell 
them at home that I have no more use in fu- 
ture for Socialists nor for rattlesnakes. When 
I come out," he continued, " there's not a bulldog 
but I'll look in the eye. I'll have a shack of my 
own, and I'll work for my own, and when I am laid 
in the ground I'll have a grave of my own. It's 
property as makes the man, and no two ways 
about it." 

We have seen in the previous Conference that 
man as an individual and as the father of a family 
has a right to make provision for his permanent 
needs, and that the normal and natural way of 
doing so is by acquiring possession of some part 
of those sources of supply with which nature has 
so wonderfully and plentifully provided the hu- 
man race. This method of providing for human 
wants has been a method actually practised among 
all peoples, and in all ages. On the great Western 
continent in this New World this scheme of things 
still obtains. 

But now comes the Socialist who advocates 
what he considers to be a more effective method, 
namely, the transfer of all the means of production 
to the community, to be administered by the civil 
authority. 



282 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

We have already seen in our second Conference 
that the State is a natural institution with certain 
well-defined rights and duties which are restricted 
by prior claims and duties of the individual and the 
family. Hence we may say at once that Social- 
ism is not a natural or normal solution. It goes 
counter to the purpose for which the State was 
instituted through man by God. Under Socialism 
State action becomes a substitute for individual 
action, rather than supplementary to it. The 
individual, as has already been shown, becomes 
swallowed up in the State. This is an inversion 
of the natural order. 

Hence the presumption is in favour of private 
capitalism, which I have shown to be a natural 
arrangement. That arrangement could be legiti- 
mately upset only on the supposition that it had 
ceased to be capable of fulfilling its purpose. 
Socialism to be justified would have first of all to 
prove there was no alternative. 

Now I shall point out in my last Confer- 
ence that the present capitalistic system is 
capable of being reformed. Its abuses may be 
corrected. They are not inherent in the system. 
Hence this is the direction in which we should 
bend our efforts. This would remain true even 
were Socialism to prevail. For even were Social- 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 283 

ism to prevail it would not cease to be un- 
natural. 

Socialism is unnatural. This is a point which 
I wish to develop in this chapter. It is a point 
which will involve a further consideration of the 
Catholic doctrine about property, which I have 
already shown to be in accordance with normal 
and healthy human instincts. 

Socialism would thwart and cripple certain 
natural desires and aspirations in man which 
the Catholic Church seeks to foster and develop. 
In the first place, it would destroy man's free- 
dom. 

The Socialist will resent this statement. He 
will declare that men and women are not free at 
present ; that they are entangled in the wheels of 
a cruel industrial system, and that Socialism alone 
can and will set them free. 

But I repeat that under Socialism men and 
women would not be free. Even though they had 
plenty to eat and drink, and wherewith to be clothed, 
and wherein to be sheltered, they would not be 
free. They would not be free because they would 
not be masters of their own lives, nor would they 
be able to order their lives as they chose. I admit 
that the power of ordering their lives as they choose 
is to-day, owing to the abuses of the present 



284 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

system, very limited. But under Socialism the 
power would not exist at all. There would be no 
room for self-determining action. There would 
be one master, one general manager. In all the 
details of work and recreation, at every turn and 
moment of his life, a man would find his activities 
directed by the public authority. He could not 
stand out or strike against his employer, for his 
employer would be the State. He could not buy 
anything, or read anything, or eat anything, or 
do anything, unless the State chose to let him. 
He would have as much freedom only as a cog 
in a piece of machinery, as a nerve centre in a 
living organism. 

Let it not be said that since the man himself 
would be a part of the State he would exercise 
control over public administration. What sort 
of control, I ask, would it be ? Would it be com- 
parable to the immediate control which a man has 
over his own actions and destiny ? By no means. 
Man's personal influence over public administra- 
tion would be as a drop in the ocean. It would 
be far from satisfying that desire to control his 
own life to which every healthy-minded man 
clings. It would certainly not enable us to say 
of a man that he was free. 

Again, Socialism would give absolutely no scope 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 285 

to that desire to own productive property which 
is natural to man, and which is particularly notice- 
able in the case of the Western races. 

Again, the Socialist objects that this desire can 
only be gratified by a few under the present system. 
To this I reply that this is due to the abuses that 
have crept into the system, and not to the system 
itself. Because few only can satisfy that desire 
to-day, is that a reason for making it impossible 
for any one at all to satisfy it ? 

I believe that this desire to own productive 
property is a strong, healthy, and natural desire. 
It is something much more solid than a mere desire 
to possess the comforts and conveniences of life. 
Neither is it a mere desire to exploit the labour of 
others. It is a desire to protect one's freedom, 
to secure one's independence, to preserve one's 
personal respect, to assert one's manhood. 

This last point has been well developed by Mr. 
Belloc in a paper entitled An Examination of 
Socialism : — 

"Where few own, the mass who do not own at 
all are under a perpetual necessity to abase them- 
selves in a number of little details. That is why 
industrial societies fight so badly compared with 
societies of peasant proprietors. The mass of the 
population gets trained to the sacrifice of honour ; 



286 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

it gets used to being ordered about by the capital- 
ist, and partially loses its manhood. If there 
were but one capitalist, the State, this evil would 
certainly be exaggerated. Men would necessarily 
have lost all power of expression for the sentiment 
known as personal honour ; they would have one 
absolute master, all forms of personal seclusion 
from whom would be impossible. This, when it 
is stated in the midst of modern evils, appears a 
very small point ; but those who have passed by 
compulsion from a higher to a lower standard of 
personal honour can testify how vital a point is 
that honour in the scheme of human happiness/' 

And finally we may take higher ground and 
consider not merely the economic disadvantages 
of Socialism, or its failure to satisfy human needs, 
but its inherent injustice. 

A government for the public good may place 
considerable limitations on the acquisition and 
control and use of property. But for the govern- 
ment to seek to take all productive property away 
from its owners must necessarily be an act of 
rank injustice. It could only be justified by 
absolute necessity, and that necessity does not 
and cannot exist. 

As Pope Leo XIII says in the Encyclical : — 

"When man thus turns the activity of his mind 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 287 

and the strength of his body towards procuring 
the fruits of nature, by such acts he makes his 
own that portion of nature's field which he cul- 
tivates — that portion on which he leaves, as it 
were, the impress of his individuality ; and it can- 
not but be just that he should possess that portion 
as his own, and have a right to hold it without 
any one being justified in violating that right." 

Man is a free being and his whole nature rebels 
against the injustice of depriving him of what by 
the legitimate exercise of his faculties he has made 
his own. Whether what he has made be itself 
productive or not makes no difference. His senti- 
ment of justice is outraged by its deprivation, save 
where such confiscation is absolutely necessary for 
the well-being and safety of the community. 

Now in order to grasp the full significance of 
the Catholic doctrine of private capital we must 
examine at some length what the Church has to 
say about the acquisition of property and the limi- 
tations of property. In this way, so it seems to 
me, we shall put ourselves in an impregnable 
position against the specious arguments of the 
Socialist. 

All men, according to the teaching of the Catho- 
lic Church, have the right to own capital. They 
have the right to own capital for the excellent 



288 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

reason that they are men. But to possess the 
right to own capital is not the same as actually 
to possess it. All men because they are men 
have an equal right to own capital ; but they 
have not all an equal right to own the same capital. 
The right which we all equally possess may be 
called an abstract right. It does not beget or 
bequeath to us the property. We have to make 
the abstract right concrete, to exercise it, before 
we can acquire the property. 

I remember a parish priest in Ireland saying to 
his poverty-stricken flock in Mayo, during Lent : 
"My brethren, the Bishop of the Diocese gives 
you permission to eat meat three times a week. 
But the Lord knows where ye'll get it from." 

It is much the same with the right of property. 
By virtue of it we may acquire and hold property 
— supposing that we can get it. 

It might seem as though a vague, shadowy right 
of this sort were of very little practical moment. 
But this is not the case. As a matter of fact, the 
abstract right of possessing private capital is 
bitterly attacked in these days ; and we have to 
vindicate the great basic principles upon which the 
true Catholic doctrine of property rests. Before 
proving that this man has a right to this property, I 
must prove that man in general has a natural right 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 289 

to own property in general. And this I have just 
attempted to do. 

But it is no less important to go on to show 
how this right of ownership may be made concrete. 
The right would indeed be useless if it could not 
be exercised. God, who has given us the right, has 
also given us legitimate methods of employing 
that right and realizing it. 

Now there are certain well-recognized methods 
by which property may legitimately and justly 
come into a man's possession. I may be given a 
farm, or I may be bequeathed a farm, or I may 
buy a farm in the market. In each case the farm 
becomes my property. 

But a further question will arise. The man 
who sold or gave me the farm must have owned 
it himself before he could transfer it to me. What 
was his title of ownership ? If I answer that it 
was purchase or gift, I am driven further and 
further back, until I come to the first person who 
owned the farm, the original owner. What claim 
had the first owner to acquire it ? In other words, 
I want to know the ultimate justification and title 
of ownership. Sale and gift and other methods 
by which property changes hands are derived and 
secondary titles. To justify them I must justify 
the action of the man who was the first occupier 



290 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of the land. If the first proprietor had not just 
title to the land, subsequent transference cannot 
be justified. And although practically all ac- 
quisition of property is nowadays of this derived 
or secondary character, yet we must make sure 
of our claims by examining the original title 
deeds. 

Now the Catholic Church teaches that under 
certain recognized conditions a man may acquire 
property simply by occupying it. 

What are these conditions ? In the first place, 
the article in question (whether land or anything 
else) must not have been occupied by any one 
else. It must be res nullius. Secondly, the 
act of occupying it must be definite and effective 
and manifested by some external sign. A man 
cannot land on a newly discovered continent and 
say with a sweep of his arm, "In my own name I 
proclaim all this continent to be mine." He must 
mark out the ground he intends to occupy by some 
distinct sign. If he cultivates the land or puts 
his labour into it, his title becomes still more clear. 
But this is not necessary. It is enough that he 
should be able to supply juridical proof that he 
has in reality occupied it. 

Observe well that the mere fact of occupation 
does not in itself constitute the right to occupy it. 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 291 

I must have the rightto occupy a thing before I 
occupy it, otherwise I have no title to the occupa- 
tion. My act of occupation is merely a juridical 
fact which turns a latent right into an actual 
right, an indefinite one into a definite one. By 
my act of occupation, my natural right, given me 
by God, receives its final determination; it is 
put into exercise. 

How do I show that mere occupation of a thing 
is sufficient determination of my natural right to 
own property ? 

I show it first by appealing to universal practice. 
In all ages such an act of occupation has been 
recognized as conferring a just title to ownership. 
Study the methods by which in the States and in 
Canada men have acquired property, and you will 
find that the method I refer to obtains. 

Again, there must be some method by which 
man's right to acquire and hold property can be 
exercised. It would be absurd to suppose that all 
men possess a right which no man can enjoy. But 
no other method of exercising this right can be sug- 
gested ; for the supposition that labour alone con- 
fers this right is quite untenable. (Cf. Cathrein, 
" Moral Phil.," n. 378.) Hence, we are driven to 
conclude that the recognized and traditional 
method of acquiring property in the first instance 



292 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

is in fact the only adequate and satisfactory 
method. 

Note that this method violates no man's rights ; 
for occupation is only a valid title in the case of 
what is previously unoccupied. By occupying a 
piece of land I am not wronging Peter and John, 
who have not occupied it before me. I am not 
wronging the community, for, as we have seen, 
private ownership is required for social welfare. 
I am not wronging the State, for the State is 
not the owner of all property. 1 am merely exer- 
cising a right which I hold from nature, and exer- 
cising it in a natural way. 

Of course my action in so doing may be limited 
by other considerations. I cannot occupy a 
whole district if such occupation will result in 
misery for the rest of the community. To this 
point I will return later when dealing with the 
limitations to the right of ownership. At present 
I am merely defending the traditional method of 
exercising that right. 

Let me here dispose of an objection which 
was raised and refuted more than two thousand 
years ago, but has been popularized by the late 
Henry George. (" Progress and Poverty/' pp. 
212-224.) 

"Has the first comer at a banquet the right to 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 293 

turn back all the chairs and claim that none of 
the other guests shall partake of the food provided, 
except as they make terms with him ? Does the 
first man who presents a ticket at the door of a 
theatre and passes in, acquire by his priority the 
right to shut the doors and have the performance 
go on for him alone ? " 

"In like manner," contends Henry George, "our 
rights to take and possess cannot be exclusive.' ' 

St. Thomas answers this very objection. 
(II. II ae , Q. 66, a. 2.) He points out that the man 
who came first into the theatre would do no wrong 
by preparing the way for others. He would only 
do wrong if he prevented others from enjoying the 
show. "And similarly a rich man does no wrong 
if, being the first to take possession of what was 
to begin with common property, he lets others 
also have the benefit of it; but he sins if he 
excludes others from the use of it in their 
necessity." 

Observe that St. Thomas does not regard the 
possession of private capital as a keeping out of 
other people from the use of the good things of the 
earth. On the contrary, he regards it as a natural 
and divinely sanctioned arrangement which is for 
the advantage of society, and tends to bring those 
good things within the reach of all. The owner 



294 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of capital " prepares the way" for others, he does 
not exclude them. He renders service to the 
community. His right of property carries with it 
certain social obligations. 

The doctrine of the Church on this matter is so 
important that I must be allowed to set it forth 
in some detail. If we do not grasp it, we shall fall 
into the mistakes made by socialist writers who 
claim to find Socialism in St. Thomas and the 
Fathers. 

In the first instance we must bear in mind the 
distinction between the control of property, and 
the use and enjoyment of property. Socialists 
admit the distinction, but seem incapable of recog- 
nizing it when it appears in the writings of a 
Catholic author. 

I may have the control of a thing without being 
allowed the use of it. And I may have the use 
of a thing without having the control of it. Let 
me illustrate my meaning. 

In a family the children have the use of their 
clothing, but not the control of it. The parents 
have the control, but not the use of it. My right 
to enjoy the use of a public park or library 
gives me no right to manage and control it. The 
Baths Committee have the control of the women's 
baths, but not the use of them. The Prisons' 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 295 

Commissioners have the control of the convict's 
cell, but not the use and enjoyment of it. I 
may have the use of train service, but not the 
control of it. I may have the control of a baby- 
cart, but not the use of it. 

Now this distinction must be constantly kept 
in mind if we are to understand the Catholic 
doctrine of the right of property. The Church 
says certain things about the control of property. 
She says certain other things about the use and 
enjoyment of it. If we' confuse the two, we shall 
make her talk Socialism, which is the last thing 
she wants to do. 

What, then, does the Church say about the control 
of property ? She says that individuals and fami- 
lies may very properly possess such control. Pri- 
vate control is not only licit, it is as we have seen, 
socially necessary. The right to possess private 
capital is exclusive, and perpetual, and trans- 
missible. A man does not lose his right to his 
own property even though he makes bad use of 
such right. 

But when the Church speaks of the use of prop- 
erty, she uses very different language. The right 
to control property is an exclusive right. The 
right to use property, however, is of a different 
nature. As far as the use of things goes, says St. 



296 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Thomas, "man should not consider his outward 
possessions as his own, but as common to all, so 
as to share them without hesitation when others 
are in need." Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical, 
" Rerum No varum," quotes these very words, pref- 
acing them by the significant expression, "The 
Church replies without hesitation in the words of 
the same holy Doctor." 

The Catholic doctrine as to the use of property 
is very clear and very definite, very strong and 
very striking. It is poles asunder from the egotis- 
tical view of the use of property which unfortunately 
prevails in our capitalistic society, and about which 
I shall say something presently. The Catholic 
Church regards property not as a mere means to 
selfish enjoyment, but as a public trust. The 
possessor of capital is a steward, exercising exclu- 
sive control of something from the use of which 
he must not exclude others in their need. 

In other words, property, according to Catholic 
teaching, has a definite social function. A Catho- 
lic would not indeed say that private ownership 
is a social function ; for this might imply that the 
right is derived from society and that owners are 
merely the delegates and employees of society. 
This is not the case. The right is a natural right 
and springs from the right to live a normal, social 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 297 

life possessed by every individual. But, never- 
theless, the Church affirms that ownership has a 
social role, social duties, a social function. 

There can be no doubt that had the Catholic 
doctrine as to the use of property been generally 
recognized and acted upon, the social problem 
could never have reached its present critical stage. 
For the Church bans and denounces that selfish 
view of property which has led to the present 
disorganization of society. And in this, her teach- 
ing, she has been unfaltering and uniform, from the 
time when Christ threatened those who misused 
their right to property with eternal damnation, 
down to the day when Pope Leo XIII strove to 
recall modern Capitalism to a sense of its obli- 
gations. 

Wealth is a trust. Rich men are stewards. 
They must give of their superfluities to those who 
need them. They are not left free in the matter. 
A rigorous obligation is imposed upon them. 

Observe the splendid consistency of the Catho- 
lic doctrine. The very same principle which es- 
tablishes the right of private property also es- 
tablishes its limitations. The doctrine is based 
upon God's law, it secures God's rights, it corre- 
sponds to the highest human sentiments of mutual 
love and of social solidarity. It prevents the 



298 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

goods of the earth from becoming the prey of the 
selfish few. It opens out to all men the enjoy- 
ment of the good things of the earth. If strictly 
observed, it mitigates the lot of the poor, while at 
the same time it preserves the social order by up- 
holding the right of private control. It recog- 
nizes the element of truth in the two exaggerated 
theories of absolute ownership and of Socialism. 
It unites private control with common use. 

The Catholic theory is the only theory which 
is proof against the criticism of Socialists. Those 
who deny that the use of property is common have 
no answer to give when the Socialist points to the 
awful contrast which at present exists between 
luxurious and destitute classes. The Catholic, 
like the Socialist, denounces the modern evils of 
Capitalism; but he would abolish these evils not 
by making control public but by making use 
common ; by making it obligatory in charity on 
the rich to give of their abundance to those who 
are in need of material help. 

It would take us too long to examine in detail 
the magnificent system of social obligations which 
the Catholic Church has built up. That system 
has its firm roots in theology and philosophy, it 
satisfies every requirement of justice and charity, 
it takes account of man both as an individual and 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 299 

as a member of society. Let me briefly enumerate 
some of its features. 

Of the obligation to relieve those in extreme 
necessity I have already spoken. Other obliga- 
tions also exist; that, for instance, of paying a 
just wage to servants and employees. This is 
an obligation of strict justice. The salary given 
must be sufficient to support the wage-earner. 
If, under the pressure of necessity, a workingman 
accepts less than a living wage, the Church de- 
clares that the contract is not only harsh and 
cruel but also invalid and unjust. The Church 
will not listen to those who say that such con- 
tracts are merely a private matter between mas- 
ter and man, and that if the workman accepts 
bad conditions because he cannot get better ones, 
yet he freely contracts. Pope Leo XIII, in the 
Encyclical so often quoted, points out that the 
man in such a case is not really free. He is the 
victim of force and fraud. 

There are other duties of strict justice which are 
too often overlooked. Too many forget that to 
put off paying debts to tradesmen is a gross act 
of injustice persistently denounced by the Church. 

But let us pass from duties of justice to duties 
of charity. And let me point out that the obliga- 
tion may be as grave in one case as in the other. 



300 SOCIALISM AXD CHRISTIANITY 

The Catholic notion of charity is often misun- 
derstood, and some seem to imagine that because 
a duty is a '" duty of charity. " it may be neglected. 
The difference between justice and charity is 
important, and has important consequences, es- 
pecially as regards the obligation of restitution. 
But this does not mean that charity is optional. 
Christ threatens with eternal punishment those 
who neglect to practise it. 

What, then, are the •'duties of charity" con- 
nected with ownership ? Here are some of 
them : — 

1. There is the grave obligation to help the 
poor. This is an absolute command. The teach- 
ing of the Church on this point has been constant. 
Pope Leo XIII writes thus : — 

"True, no one is commanded to distribute to 
others that which is required for his own needs and 
those of his household ; nor to give away what is 
reasonably required to keep up becomingly his 
condition in life : 'for no one ought to live other 
than becomingly." But when what necessity de- 
mands has been supplied, and one's standing 
fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to 
give to the indigent out of what remains over. 
Of that which remaineth. give alms. It is a duty. 
not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 301 

Christian charity — a duty not enforced by hu- 
man law. But the laws and judgments of men 
must yield place to the laws and judgments of 
Christ, the true God, Who in many ways urges 
on His followers the practice of almsgiving — ' It 
is more blessed to give than to receive ; ' and Who 
will count a kindness done or refused to the poor 
as done or refused to Himself. 'As long as you 
did it to one of My least brethren, you did it to Me. 1 
To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever 
has received from the divine bounty a large share 
of temporal blessings, whether they be external 
and corporeal, or gifts of the mind, has received 
them for the purpose of using them for the per- 
fecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, 
that he may employ them, as the steward of 
God's Providence, for the benefit of others. 'He 
that hath a talent/ says St. Gregory the Great, 
'let him see that he hide it not; he that hath 
abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and 
generosity ; he that hath art and skill, let him do 
his best to share the use and the utility thereof 
with his neighbour/ " 

Note that this duty being one of charity, the 
poor have not a right of strict justice to the super- 
fluous wealth of the rich. They have no legal claim 
to it, as they have to just wages or debts. But 



302 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

the rich are nevertheless absolutely bound in 
charity to give it. 

2. This duty of charity is specially urgent in 
the case of those more closely connected with us 
by natural or social ties % The employer has 
special duties of charity towards his employed, 
the master to his servants, the landowner to his 
tenants. There is more than a mere cash nexus 
between them : there is a social bond, and it 
involves its obligations. 

3. We may add various other obligations 
equally certain, sacred, and strict which may be 
called duties of " natural equity." 1 

Under this head may be enumerated the fol- 
lowing duties which attach to property : — 

1. To respect the dignity of the poor and of the 
working classes. 

2. To enable employees to fulfil their duties 
as husbands, fathers, citizens, and Christians. 

3. To avoid imposing work which is beyond the 
strength of workers or unsuited to their age or 
sex. 

4. To compensate employees for accidents. 
This becomes a matter of strict justice when the 
accident is due to the employer's fault. 

1 Some prefer the term " social justice." But this expres- 
sion is vague and may easily lead to confusion. 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 303 

5. To safeguard the innocence of children and 
the honour of women. 1 

We might add yet other duties which press 
upon the employer : those, for instance, of giving 
good example, of supporting religion, of promoting 
the political and social education of their people 
and the material prosperity of the district, and 
also of cultivating that cordial personal contact 
with their employees which is so necessary for 
social peace and well-being. Absenteeism is not 
blessed by the Catholic Church. 

And finally, what is the duty of the State tow- 
ards the right of property ? 

The State must recognize the right, respect it, 
protect it. The State may also be called upon to 
regulate and limit its use. I have already ex- 
plained the purpose and aim of civil authority. 
That purpose and aim regulates the limits of civil 
interference. When public rights conflict with 
private, the latter must give way : and in this 
matter the State is the arbiter. Yet as Pere 
Antoine points out, it may not be arbitrary in its 
arbitration. Its right to limit the use of prop- 
erty springs from and is limited by its incontes- 

1 (These duties are insisted upon in the Pope's Encyclical and 
have been explained at length by the Abbe Garriguet in his 
work, "Regime de la Propri6te.") 



304 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

table right to existence and self-preservation, by 
its right "to furnish citizens, by means of social 
organization, with the possibility of developing, 
by private initiative, their personal well-being." 

The State has no direct and immediate power 
over private property, but it may reconcile its 
mode of acquisition and its use with the common 
good. The right of the State is a power of juris- 
diction falling directly on individuals and only 
indirectly on property. 

This principle will be found worked out in 
detail by Pere Antoine in his excellent work just 
referred to. He shows how the State should 
promote the stability of the family by making 
wise laws of inheritance, how it should frame 
legislation which will give a special measure of 
protection to the working classes, and how it 
should facilitate division of landed property, 
counteract its abnormal accumulation in a few 
hands, and give the fullest protection to all 
healthy forms of association. 

It will be seen, then, that the right to own prop- 
erty is, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, hedged 
about with very serious obligations, and that the 
State must cooperate in enforcing them. If 
these obligations were realized and practised, we 
should be halfway to a solution of our social 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 305 

problems. But it is to be feared that these obli- 
gations are often overlooked even by Catholic 
employers. The truth is that the teaching of the 
Church in these matters has been obscured by the 
anti-Catholic wave of economic Liberalism which 
swept over Europe during the last century, but 
which is at last beginning to ebb. The theory 
of the " absolute right of property," which regards 
property as existing merely for the benefit of the 
owner, is an exaggeration no less mischievous than 
the opposite exaggeration which it has produced 
by a natural reaction and which forms the basis 
of Socialism. 

Let me here summarize the excellent criticism 
of the false theory which is to be found in the 
treatise of Abbe Garriguet. 

1. The Theory is anti-Christian, for it is based 
on egoism. Christianity says we are all children 
of one Father, and have mutual duties. 

2. The Theory is anti-Natural. It is, as 
Bishop Ketteler says, a crime against nature, 
because it uses for selfish gratification what God 
has intended for the service of all : and also be- 
cause it stifles noble sentiments, and breeds cal- 
lousness, indifference, and insensibility to human 
suffering. 

3. The Theory has never been admitted by the 



306 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Church. The Popes, as civil rulers, persistently 
obliged the great landowners during seven cen- 
turies to provide the labourers with small hold- 
ings, even at considerable loss to themselves. If 
a landowner refused to cultivate his own land, 
any person whatever might occupy and culti- 
vate (either free of charge or on payment of a 
small rent in kind; one-third of the land thus left 
uncultivated. The owner who attempted to 
evict such a tenant was heavily fined. Church 
land came under this provision. 

4. The Theory has never been admitted in 
practice by any government. The State has 
always claimed to impose limits to the use of 
private property whenever the public welfare has 
required it. Bear in mind that the only effective 
way of refuting the socialist position is by the 
statement of the Catholic position. When we 
grasp the teaching of the Church with regard to 
the right of property, its nature and origin, its 
limitations and consequences, we see that it pro- 
vides a remedy for the abuses against which So- 
cialism rightly protests, while at the same time 
it avoids the errors and exaggerations the social- 
istic solution involves. 

The essence of Socialism is that all the means 
of production should be transferred to the com- 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 307 

munity. We have seen that such a transference 
would be contrary both to justice and to natural 
law. 

Now some of my readers may endeavour to 
sweep away the whole of the foregoing argument 
by denying the basis upon which it rests. They 
may refuse to allow that we have any knowledge 
of God's will in the matter, or indeed of His very 
existence. They may take their stand upon a 
materialistic theory of evolution. They may 
refuse to believe in a supernatural order. They 
may decline to regard the Catholic Church as the 
authoritative exponent of the divine will. 

I cannot pursue them on to this wider ground 
within the limits of this course of Conferences. 
But let me invite them to reflect upon an undeni- 
able historical fact. 

They do not admit that the Church speaks 
with divine authority. But they are bound to 
admit that the Church speaks with the very high- 
est human authority. They deny that the Church 
speaks with the wisdom of God. They cannot 
deny that the Church speaks with the accumulated 
wisdom of men. The Church, at the very least, 
is the greatest expert to be found on the face of 
the earth in human nature and human history. 

No man, no body of men, no institution, can rival 



308 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

her in experience and insight. She has been 
studying the history of men and nations for nearly 
two thousand years. Nay, she has taken the 
leading part in the making of that history. She 
is the greatest fact in that history. She has been 
in the closest contact with all nations : she has 
watched them rise and fall. She is always teach- 
ing ; she is always learning. She is always mak- 
ing use of that learning. She is concerned with 
every aspect of human life. She deals with man 
in a far more intimate way than any government 
can do or wants to do. She draws out his secrets, 
she learns his needs, she divines his aspirations, 
she marks his limitations, she estimates his possi- 
bilities, she lifts up his ambitions. All this must 
be admitted by the serious student of history. 

Hence the mere human authority of the Church 
is of incalculable weight. She knows what is in 
man. She knows what faith inspires him, what 
motives actuate him, what circumstances affect 
him. She knows what is essential and normal to 
him, and what is merely accidental and transient. 
And when she says that the possession of private 
capital is essential to the welfare both of the indi- 
vidual and of society, we may be sure she is right. 

She warns us against transferring all capital 
to the control of governments. She urges us to 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 309 

procure its wide and equitable distribution among 
citizens. She declares that only thus can we en- 
sure social stability, peace, and prosperity ; only 
thus can we develop man's highest possibilities. 
She declares that the instinct to own capital is a 
part of our human outfit, an ineradicable instinct 
which we cannot overlook with impunity. That 
is a message which no man can afford to disregard. 

In conclusion, let me remind you once more that 
the Catholic teaching about capital, or private 
and productive ownership, is the via media be- 
tween the two contradictory theories to which is 
to be traced the present strained relations obtain- 
ing between Capital and Labour. 

The Catholic Church on the one hand rigidly 
insists that it is a sin against nature to proclaim 
that man is the absolute proprietor of all that he 
possesses, and that he may convert it to any use 
he may think fit, regardless of the needs of his 
fellow-man. On the other hand, the Catholic 
Church no less insists that it is a sin against nature 
to proclaim that all property is robbery, and that 
under the plea of philanthropy or what not, it 
ought to be transferred to the community and 
socialized. 

The Catholic Church condemns and has always 
condemned, as the writings of St. Thomas of 



310 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Aquin, who wrote on the subject luminously six 
hundred years ago, abundantly testifies, both these 
contradictory theories about ownership. The 
Church takes her stand between these two con- 
flicting dogmas about private property. Recog- 
nizing that man in order to realize himself and to 
fulfil his mission in life as an individual and as 
head of a family, must possess some sort of prop- 
erty, she says that God, who is the One, supreme 
Proprietor of the Goods of the earth, has given over 
to man the control and management of property, 
but only as His stewards ; so that while he may 
make use of so much of it as is necessary for the 
support and up-keep of his station in life, he is 
bound under pain of sin to distribute of his 
superfluities to those of his brethren who stand 
in need of them. The Catholic Church upholds 
and safeguards the right of private and productive 
ownership in the sense I have explained. 

But while she thus sets her face as flint against 
the iniquitous doctrine that property is robbery, 
she utters her anathemas no less clearly and dis- 
tinctly against the dictum that a man may do 
just as he pleases with what is called his own. 

Let me repeat, man is God's steward and will 
have to give an account of his stewardship. He will 
have to give an account of how he got his prop- 



SOCIALISM AND DUTIES OF OWNERSHIP 311 

erty, of how he managed his property, and of how 
he used his property, and also of how he resisted 
the encroachments of those who dared to lay 
hands on his property, forgetting or ignoring the 
divine precepts: "Thou shalt not steal/' "Thou 
shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods." 

Defend your private property. Remember that 
it represents the labours of your father, the solici- 
tudes of your mother ; remember that in defend- 
ing it you are guarding your home, you are pro- 
tecting your children, you are providing for your 
family, you are upholding those two strong pillars 
— Property and Family — on which your country 
depends for its material and natural support, 
strength, and stability. 



IX 

SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 

It is only by going among the people and inter- 
changing talk with them that you can arrive at a 
true and just estimate of what they are, of what 
they have, and of what they really think about 
such problems as Socialism and kindred subjects. 
When you win the confidence of the workingman 
he keeps nothing back ; he utters his soul, he re- 
veals his inner self, and gladly puts before you his 
aims and ambitions in life. 

During my travels from the Hudson to the 
Yukon, and whilst steaming on the Pacific Ocean 
and its big tributary rivers, I made a point of 
associating, when opportunity offered, with the 
various sections of the toiling classes who were 
my fellow-travellers. Invariably, after a very 
short interval, they made me feel quite at home 
with them, making me the companion of their 
thoughts and extending to me the hand of welcome 
and of friendship. 

You will ask me : "Did you find them innocu- 
lated with the microbe of Socialism? Were 

312 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 313 

they among those who believe in the ' redemp- 
tion of the people by the people' ?" I must con- 
fess that quite a considerable section of them 
showed very decided leanings towards Socialism. 
On one occasion, whilst chatting with a group of 
men, made up of several nationalities, and fol- 
lowing various callings, from that of the mech- 
anician to the logger, our conversation drifted 
to Socialism, and all its fair promises. The 
chief spokesman of the party, a broad-shouldered, 
rough-spun looking overseer of a railway gang 
of metal layers, said his reading had made it 
clear to him that it was the Catholic Church which 
had created capitalism and the various consti- 
tutions making up the different governments 
ruling the world to-day. He said that no other 
Church counted for much among the working 
classes, and he contended that the Catholic Church 
itself was losing ground every day ; that Socialism 
was drawing thence some of its best recruits. 
It was his strong conviction that once Catholics 
got fused into true Socialism, they had no more 
use for the Church than "a chauffeur for a push 
cart." I asked him what in his opinion was it 
that drew the Catholic toiler into the socialist 
net ? He replied at once : " First of all, Catholics 
who want to get on in any kind of business begin 



314 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

by joining what you call the Secret Societies, and 
once they have got in there they shed their reli- 
gion as surely as the deer its horns. Besides/' 
he continued, "all religions are the out-put of 
economic conditions, and though your Church 
in a day gone by may have done something for 
the workingman, her day is passed; she is as 
much behind the times as the drill and hammer are 
behind the dredger. She is a low-grade proposi- 
tion, and will never again strike gold." I reminded 
my friend of what the Catholic Church was doing 
to-day in the United States, and with some pride I 
drew out not a short list of her great and glorious 
achievements. But he only shrugged his shoulders, 
and said, " Maybe she is all you say, but she is 
losing her hold for all that, and her loss is our 
gain. We are netting them like Alaskan salmon, 
and no mistake about it." 

With rare exceptions the bread-winner outside 
the Church seems to be pretty fully convinced that 
the coming religion, so-called, of the workingman 
is going to be " Class Religion" ; that is to say, a 
" religion" making directly for the material and 
social interests of the toiling classes, and indirectly 
for the social well-being of humanity. 

Socialists are very plausible and most insinuat- 
ing. They have a patent medicine which is a 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 315 

cure-all for every conceivable grievance and com- 
plaint. The vote-catching Socialist will tell his 
hearers that it is the high mission of Socialism to 
relieve all the woes and wrongs from which the 
social organism is at present suffering ; that when 
once the Commonwealth shall have been estab- 
lished in their midst, there will no longer be any 
occasion for penury or want, and that all social 
and class distinctions will then be done away with 
forever, while in the place of capital and labour, 
of peer and peasant, of rich and poor, there will 
rise up a common Brotherhood with money enough 
and leisure enough to go right round. Then life 
will become worth living, for no man will be over- 
worked or underpaid, while members of the com- 
munity will be assured of all that is needed to 
make their lot in life one of contentment and of 
merriment ; in a word, one of earthly happiness. 

When the socialist agitator finds himself in an 
agricultural district, with an audience made up of 
labourers and small farmers, he unfolds another 
tale. He expatiates upon the wrongs done to 
the small landholder by the millionnaire farmer 
with his countless acres under wheat or other 
cereals, and with outstanding lands laden with 
lumber. " These are the thieves," he will tell his 
gaping auditory, "who are robbing you of a decent 



316 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

price for your crops, these are the landowners who 
are underselling you ; see, here are the grafters who 
are manipulating the railroads, and making it im- 
possible for you to pay the freight of your produce 
to the nearest city market. You have a real 
grievance, you have, ' ' exclaims the agitator. ' ' For 
you there is no redress but Socialism. Under our 
Commonwealth you will be the men to benefit most 
of all, for you will become in the socialist State 
the chief producers of grain and other food-stuffs. 
No longer will you be beaten to the earth by the 
savage competition set up by landlord capitalists ; 
we shall see that you will have fair play, fair pay, 
and a market, which shall under no conditions 
be cornered by a group of men, or by any single 
individual. If you want to stick to the land, if 
you want to have fine crops with an assured mar- 
ket, throw in your lot with us, who are your friends, 
who wish you well, and who will make life for the 
small holder worth while. Lift up your voices, 
and let your cry loud and strong be : ' On to 
Socialism.' " 

On the other hand, when the socialist orator's 
platform is not in the country, but in a busy city 
his cry is changed to "Down with the Depart- 
ment Store." He gathers round his soap box the 
small storekeepers with their customers and dis- 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 317 

courses to them eloquently about the iniquities 
of "the Universal Provider.' 7 " But for these big 
ventures, but for these colossal stores, you," he 
shouts out, " would be doing in this town a thriv- 
ing business. It is the millionnaire store which 
you are up against, which is starving you, and 
which is ruining and closing up all the retail busi- 
nesses in this city." Then the socialist agitator 
will go on to assure his storekeeping friends that 
he and his fellows have made it their mission to 
study the present iniquitous condition of affairs 
which has rendered it impossible for an honest 
tradesman to hold his own, and to keep his door 
open to the public. "When once we have made 
a clean sweep of these sky-scraping department 
premises, you," he goes on to say, "will have it 
all your own way, you will make a fine turnover, 
for we shall see that instead of having to compete 
in a heavily handicapped race for the necessaries 
of life, you will, on the contrary, be assured a com- 
fortable income on which to live and enjoy the 
good things of time and sense. If you want to 
thrive instead of starve, if you want success in- 
stead of bankruptcy, come over to our camp. 
Unite with us, and we will make short shift of 
these inhuman business competitors. In their 
place and on their premises, we will set up your 



318 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

stores, and from you only shall be purchased all 
hardware goods, fancy articles, clothing, groceries, 
drugs, farming implements, household utensils, 
and other salable articles recognized by our 
Commonwealth. Rally to our red flag, for under 
it, and under it only, will you find your businesses 
supreme, and your income assured, and your 
own lives for the first time without an anxiety, 
a debt, or a trouble. Your hours of work will be 
few and your time of leisure ample." 

There is yet another section of the community 
to which the socialist campaigner never forgets 
to make an appeal as telling as it is specious. It 
is to the agnostic, to the unbeliever, and to the 
atheist that he pours forth from street corners 
and meeting rooms a very torrent of his choicest 
eloquence. Mounting his rostrum, he reminds 
the groups of non-religious or irreligious men met 
about him, that in a free country a man should be 
entitled to hold what views he likes about the 
religious question ; that whereas under the present 
regime men who are without some label or other 
of superstitious belief are looked down upon by 
a cant-loving community with suspicion, and are 
treated as though they were some pestilence- 
breeding swamp to be shunned and condemned 
as unclean and unfit for citizenship, under 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 319 

Socialism, on the contrary, it will be the men 
not hampered and tethered and narrowed by 
religious sentiments, and the worn-out beliefs 
of a bygone dark age, who will find the most 
hearty welcome from the comrades. "No longer 
will you find yourselves blackballed because you 
happen to have the courage of your convictions." 
" Religion," the special pleading socialist rhetori- 
cian goes on to assure his audience, "is no concern 
of ours ; it is a private affair ; do as you will 
about it; only come and rally to our platform. 
Lift up your eloquence, pour forth your views, 
lend us your noble spirit of independence with 
which to advocate our cause which is identified 
with your own. We need the support of men 
like you, who are not priest-ridden. Turn to us 
and in turn we will do you honour, we will give 
you our confidence, and will in a day, not far 
hence, raise you to positions of trust and distinc- 
tion. Give us your two hands and let us unite, 
for we have interests in common, and both of 
us believe in shaking off all tyrannical forms of 
religion, as well as the iniquitous competition 
of all capital." In a Western city of America 
I stood on the fringe of a well-dressed crowd 
cheering to the echo an orator whose peroration 
to his anti-religious harangue was a prayer ad- 



320 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

dressed to a dollar which he had drawn forth 
from his vest pocket, and which he told his hearers, 
with their almost unanimous approval, was the 
only god who nowadays heard the workingman's 
prayer, gave him food, and drink, home and 
clothing, and a good time generally. Before he 
had ended I slipped away to the nearest police 
officer, and asked him if he could direct me to 
some recognized socialist meeting. He pointed 
to the crowd from which I had come. "That," 
I said, "is not a gathering of Socialists but of 
atheists, I have this moment left them." "It 
is all the same," replied the officer; "when once 
they let themselves go, I guess they always carry 
on like that." 

There are occasions when the socialist agitator 
does not let himself go, but is more guarded in 
his speech. When he happens to be in some more 
Catholic district, and is angling for the Catholic 
vote, the Socialist can assume an air almost of 
piety. I well remember on a dusky Sunday even- 
ing, in the fall of 1911, being drawn to a gathering 
in an Eastern city park. High above the closely 
packed meeting stood a well-dressed, well-set-up 
socialist agitator who was carefully surveying 
and manipulating his audience. After instructing 
them about his own merits, and informing them 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 321 

that though personally he belonged to no church, 
yet he contended there was room in Socialism 
for church-going people. He went on to say that 
Socialists might believe as much as they cared 
to swallow of what priests and parsons chose 
to toss out to them. " Clergymen have a right/ ' 
he said, "to express their own individual views 
about religion in the way they happen to think 
best. We do not want to hold you back from ac- 
cepting what they can no more prove than you 
yourselves can. My friends, follow, if you will, 
their creed, but shun their politics. Do not be- 
lieve a word they say about Socialism, which is 
purely a political question, a question as much 
outside religion as the Post-office or any other 
economic problem. Catholics," he continued, 
"are beginning in this liberty-loving land to wake 
up; they are thinking for themselves, and are 
finding out that the priesthood is stepping on 
dangerous ground when it dictates to the American 
Irish and Germans what they are to think of 
the socialist Commonwealth." He turned to 
his hearers and had the assurance to tell them 
that the sons of Erin and of the Fatherland were 
being recruited into the ranks of Socialism by 
the thousand. He concluded his impassioned 
address by urging his hearers not to take their 



322 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

politics from Rome, or from any one commissioned 
by Rome, but to look round for themselves and 
to sever once and for all their political from their 
religious creed, and to unite with Socialists in 
breaking down all class distinction, and all capi- 
talist exploitation of labour. This astute speaker 
made a point of praising and thanking the Irish 
and Germans in America for their sympathy and 
support, and concluded his address by insinuating 
that under a socialist regime it would fall more 
especially to the Celtic race to become their 
leaders, who, by their native eloquence and skill, 
were best fitted to shape and direct the socialist 
State to its most glorious destiny — the realiza- 
tion of human happiness on earth. 

From what I have said you will allow that the 
Socialist is, as I heard an Indian half-breed in 
Montana observe, not a bad angler; one who 
knows how "to bait his hook, and meat his trap 
for eats." On a wheel-stern, flat-bottomed boat 
I was steaming up the Yukon. Suddenly we 
drew alongside a lumber yard to wood up and 
feed our engines. One of the crew with whom I 
happened to be in conversation hurried away, 
trundling his wheelbarrow. As he did so he 
observed: "You see, Father, we can't carry 
enough wood to make the round. Between Daw- 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 323 

son and White Horse we have to log up six times. 
I guess the socialist Ship of State, of which we 
have been speaking, will not be able to carry 
enough stuff to go round, neither." That is just 
it. Even on the supposition that we did socialize 
all the instruments of production and distribu- 
tion of wealth, there would not be enough to go 
round. We should be brought to a dead stand- 
still. Individuals might get their " labour ticket," 
but would they find what they wanted? All 
commodities would be on an official pattern, 
and you would be compelled on all occasions to 
conform your wants and tastes to "our own 
make," with the unlovely consequence that life 
would be as deadly dull as that seen in a boarding- 
house, a charity school, or a barrack room. You 
would never be able to exchange the " State label" 
for any special or select brand more to your 
liking. I rather fancy the government-labelled 
article would itself run short. 

But this would be but one of many difficulties. 
How about the organization of the socialist State ? 
In the United States, with its 80,000,000 of popu- 
lation, and its many diverse interests, and its 
varied climate, and its peoples made up of every 
nation under the sun, would it be at all possible, 
even to dream in one's wildest dreams, of any 



324 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

practical scheme by which such an ever expand- 
ing and ever shifting population could be welded 
by some central power, with its agents all over 
the States, into an harmoniously working Common- 
wealth? Why, the idea even of such a possi- 
bility is an insanity; it argues a plentiful lack 
of knowledge of the peoples making up this vast 
community, and it betrays a pitiful ignorance of 
the condition of things necessarily prevailing in 
a young, vigorous, enterprising, and venture- 
loving population. A socialist Commonwealth 
in any single city in the States, say, in New York, 
or Chicago, or San Francisco, or Boston, would 
not last till the close of the day on which it was 
set up. In spite of the special pleading of Messrs. 
Bellamy, Hillquit, Spargo, and other optimists, 
it would be altogether beyond the powers of 
any socialist Commonwealth to satisfy American 
citizens that they had been assigned their right 
place and their right task in the new Republic. 
The shoe-shiner, for instance, might think he 
ought to be the druggist, the schoolmaster might 
want to be the physician, the motorman might 
wonder why he was not the dentist, and most 
probably no one in the community at all would 
allow that he ought to be the city scavenger, 
the sewer-man, coal-heaver, night-watchman, 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 325 

or the asylum or prison warden. How, let me 
ask, is Socialism going to organize labour in a 
measure to satisfy even the most pious of its 
comrades? Not long ago I happened to hear a 
guest in a hotel call a waiter to order for neglect 
of duty. The ready answer tossed back to him 
was this: " Before long you will have to wait 
on yourself, and unless you get black or yellow 
help, I guess you will also have to cook for your- 
self; we are nearly through with all these class 
differences." I asked my table waiter whether 
that man had expressed the view prevailing gen- 
erally among waiters. "Yes," he replied, "we 
are most of us comrades now, and we do not 
believe that we are going to wait much longer on 
those at whose table we shall not have a right to 
eat." He added, "My sister is a lady-help out 
West, but I guess she eats with the family." 

Here, for the moment, let us suppose that all 
the means of production and distribution of wealth 
have been duly socialized, that the organization 
of work has successfully been put into operation, 
and that every comrade in the newly established 
Commonwealth is fully satisfied with the part 
assigned him to play in it. So far, well ; but 
here comes in another big and difficult problem, 
the question of remuneration. Would it be pos- 



326 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

sible so to draw up a sliding scale of prices for 
services that every comrade would be contented 
with what fell to his lot ? I have a shrewd sus- 
picion that human nature, being as it is at present 
found among the socialist body, it would be no 
easy task to draft a scheme, or draw out a schedule, 
that would be approved and indorsed by the 
workers. Under a socialist regime no one would 
think that he had enough if somebody else had 
more. Why should he? On socialist showing 
one man is as good as another ; his only claim 
to a higher remuneration than another being his 
greater usefulness to the community. On this 
principle, the sewage of a city being of more vital 
importance than its artistic proportions, the street 
sweeper would receive a better " labour ticket " 
than the city architect. Perhaps the architect 
himself might feel aggrieved, but there would be 
no redress. The question of remuneration in a 
socialist State has never been fairly met and 
solved for the very simple reason that it does not 
admit of solution. You can no more solve it 
than you can solve the question of motive. There 
is no incentive to work but motive. Without 
some adequative motive, human or divine, to 
impel a man to work, you will not get anything 
worth having out of him. He will be without 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 327 

heart, without pride in the work set him, because 
while you may have given him a task to fulfil, 
you have robbed him of the motive power with 
which to accomplish it. Man not being an auto- 
matic machine, but a human being, to get top 
speed and good service out of him you must do 
more than crank up and provide gasolene; you 
must supply motive. Man's character needs 
grading up to lofty and holy principles if he is to 
accomplish great things for creed and country. 
Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that in the 
measure in which a man is actuated by motives 
noble, lofty, and chivalrous will his life become 
a worthy inspiration to others. 

We are assured by modern Socialists that the 
manufacturer, banker, and tradesman may be 
stimulated by the hope of financial success in 
business, but not so the scientist. All that he 
cares for is "the recognition accorded to him 
by the learned fraternity." Give him academic 
distinctions and he will be happy. On the other 
hand, the artist, Messrs. Hillquit, Spargo, and other 
leading lights of the Socialist party tell us, seeks 
neither the reward of money nor of academic titles. 
He sets no value on anything but " public ap- 
plause and glory." So, too, the statesman and the 
soldier. Both of these public servants are actu- 



328 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ated by a longing for " authority and influence." 
Money, honours, and glory to them are of no 
value whatever. 

What a pitiful ignorance of human nature 
does not all this balderdash betray ! Do artists, 
then, give their paintings away for a mere song, 
or knock them down to the highest bidder at an 
auction sale? Perhaps there is no class of men 
with a more passionate love of beautiful and 
rare things than the artistic class. The man with 
an artistic temperament needs money to purchase 
these treasures. He wants examples. He needs 
models. He must study the masterpieces in 
gallery, cathedral, and museum. To confine 
the artist to a socialist State would be like yok- 
ing a thoroughbred to a plough, like chaining a 
husky to a kennel, like confining an eagle to a 
cage. 

Socialists when pleading for their Common- 
wealth must not forget that men are not to be 
driven, and that they are not to be converted by 
acts of a socialist State, nor sanctified by processes 
of logic. 

Under a socialist State the special pleading 
Socialist thinks that there would be no difficulty 
in engaging your hewer of wood, drawer of water, 
your drain-worker, and your scullery maid. They 



SOCIALISM AND ITS PROMISES 329 

are difficult enough to get now, and you may be 
sure that under a socialist State they would not be 
get-at-able at all. For then the guarantee would 
have to be : "The maximum of freedom and of 
pay with the minimum of work and restraint ! " 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 

Socialists have laid us under a deep indebted- 
ness in two ways. In the first place, they have set 
us a splendid example not only of energy and of 
enterprise in working for a cause, but they have 
also shown us a spirit of generosity, not to say of 
self-sacrifice, by the way they go to work in their 
attempt to establish a Commonwealth with a 
very problematical future and a very uncertain 
destiny. In the second place they have done a 
great and valuable work in calling our attention 
to the social evils of the day. In fact, reading 
the history of Socialism is almost like reading the 
history of the quest for the philosopher's stone 
which was to transmute all metals into gold. The 
object sought for in both cases is unattainable. 
You can no more revolutionize human nature 
than you can turn iron into gold. Yet the search 
in both cases has resulted in a number of by-prod- 
ucts not without their use. Alchemy gave an 

330 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 331 

impetus to modern chemistry, and has not So- 
cialism given incentive to social science, to which 
many Socialists have contributed valuable ser- 
vice? 

Indeed, if all socialist literature had reached 
the level, say, of such books as " Industrial Democ- 
racy/ ' we could regard Socialism with different 
eyes from which actually we do. Alas, a glance at 
my book shelves reminds me that the gospel of 
Socialism has, in the main, been a gospel of hatred, 
of fanaticism, and of class division. 

Yet, once again, let me say it, Socialists have 
done good service in revealing our social wrongs 
and injustices, in denouncing our avarice and 
cruelty, and in showing up our crass stupidity 
and smug pharisaism. True, they are not alone 
in their denunciation ; I might cite a long list of 
earnest men of all shades of religious and politi- 
cal creeds who have done the same. 

Righteous indignation at injustice, and strenu- 
ous endeavour to right it, spring spontaneous from 
human nature wherever it is found unspoiled, 
and I am one who firmly believes that the spirit 
to make what is all wrong all right is a spirit that 
is growing all the time. 

It is with deep reluctance that on such a day 
as this, which the Lord hath made, that I pass 



332 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

into questions of controversy. 1 With still greater 
reluctance do I utter a word of condemnation of 
a party made up of men and women who, let us 
try to believe, are struggling for a larger measure 
of justice to their fellows. But after paying my 
debt of praise to Socialists for having arrested and 
fixed the attention of lawmakers, capitalists, phi- 
lanthropists, and others on the many social sores 
and industrial burdens weighing down and hurt- 
ing the workingman, I must part company with 
them; I cannot call them " comrades." 

As a man and a Christian I am compelled to 
condemn Socialism first, because, whether I con- 
sider it from the standpoint of history or from 
the outlook of Christian ethics, I find it to be 
bound up with principles and postulates and con- 
sequences which by no legitimate mental process 
can be made to fit in with the laws of justice, 
equity, and right as promulgated by the Christian 
Dispensation. 

Secondly, as a man and a Christian I condemn 
Socialism because, even if it were an economic 
theory only, which it is not, it would still be 

1 This Conference was delivered on Easter Sunday, before 
7000 persons, who were packed to the limits of standing room. 
It was estimated by the press that as many were turned away 
an hour before service. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 333 

fraught, as I have pointed out in my previous 
Conferences, with consequences pernicious and 
even disastrous to the individual and to the fam- 
ily, to religion and to the State. 

Thirdly, I condemn Socialism because it takes 
for granted what is not true, that all the social 
and industrial evils of our day are wrongs in- 
herent in the system of private capital. 

It will not do vividly to portray the troubles 
and the wrongs of the wage-earning classes — 
their cold and hunger, their poverty or penury, 
their want of wage and of work, their wretched- 
ness and misery, and, then, with a lightning jump 
of logic, to exclaim: "This is all due to and is 
a necessary consequence of the private ownership 
of the means of production." We must proceed 
calmly and surely in judgment, and before pass- 
ing a verdict on a case involving such tremen- 
dous issues, as does the one before us, we must 
first of all give a patient hearing to both sides 
of the case, bearing in mind that, while on the 
one hand Socialists saddle upon capital the entire 
responsibility and burden of all our present-day 
social wrongs, there are on the other hand thou- 
sands of their fellow-citizens, men upright of pur- 
pose, sound in judgment, students of history, 
well read in sociology; ripe scholars and earnest 



334 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Christians solicitous, nay, most anxious, to safe- 
guard the rights of all their fellow-countrymen, 
who declare that the social evils, of which both 
parties alike complain, are not due to nor essen- 
tially inherent in private ownership, but, on the 
contrary, are due almost entirely to certain eco- 
nomic and industrial abuses that have been im- 
ported into the system. Nay, I will go further and 
will say with Leo XIII, and the Supreme Pontiff 
now sitting on the Throne of the Fisherman, that 
if only the principles of Christian justice and Chris- 
tian charity as taught in the Christianity of Christ 
had been observed and enforced in the relations 
between capital and labor, the said abuses never 
could have arisen, never could have crept into 
the system hitherto obtaining. Be sure of this, 
that our present-day struggles, our present-day 
evils, and our present-day situation of unrest 
and of rivalry, of class hatred, and of fight for 
bigger dividends and higher wages, are in no small 
measure the outcome of apostacy from God, and 
revolt against Christ and His Christianity. 

If this world is our be-all and our end-all, then, 
let the cure-all for the present chaotic condition 
to which, through our own folly, we have brought 
ourselves, be revolution, with a policy of universal 
grab. The alternative before us is what I have 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 335 

stated once and again in the course of these 
Conferences, either on to Socialism or back to 
Christ. 

It is possible that some of my hearers may still 
retain something of complacency and satisfaction 
with a condition of things which has provoked the 
denunciations of many true social reformers. For 
I fear that the social sense of many of us is still in 
a very rudimentary condition. Some I fear have 
hardened their hearts by self-indulgence and luxury. 
Others are merely stupid and lacking in imagina- 
tion. They do not know what the hungry and 
homeless feel like, therefore hunger and homeless- 
ness do not exist. Their complacency is increased 
by a certain type of anti-socialist literature, which 
to my mind is as harmful as the literature which 
it seeks to combat. If anything could make me 
a Socialist it would be the anti-socialist literature 
which is controlled by men who are growing rich 
on unjust profits, and is devoted to misrepresent- 
ing the condition of the working classes and dis- 
torting or entirely ignoring their grievances. 
Such literature is wholly opposed to the spirit of 
Christianity. It is an attempt to stifle the voice 
of the oppressed, which cries to Heaven for 
vengeance. 

Some of our social evils spring from deliber- 



336 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ate injustice. Others spring from stupidity. To- 
gether they amount to an appalling sum of 
misery which must be faced honestly and reme- 
died promptly. Lest any of my readers should 
think I am exaggerating, let me recall a few facts 
about social conditions in my own country. I 
leave it to you to say if things are better here 
in your own land. I take from the English Catho- 
lic Social Year Book for 1910 : — 

1. The Housing of the Poor is a national dis- 
grace. This evil is largely responsible for much 
of our physical and moral degradation. Seven 
hundred thousand dwellings in England are said 
to be insanitary or overcrowded. Two and a half 
millions of people are declared to be living in over- 
crowded tenements. " Millions of human beings 
are housed worse than the cattle or horses of many 
a lord or squire. . . . What delicacy, modesty, or 
self-respect can be expected of men and women 
whose bodies are so shamefully packed together?" 

2. One out of every four persons in London 
dies in a workhouse, asylum, or hospital, and over 
30 per cent of the population of London live on 
or below the poverty line. Unemployment in 
threatening proportions is ever with us. 

3. Infant mortality due to criminal carelessness 
or curable ignorance is deplorably high. The 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 337 

figures are sufficiently startling, but they by no 
means represent the reality. Sir John Gorst 
writes : — 

"I am assured by doctors who are in actual 
practice in our cities that such figures give no 
idea of the infant mortality among the poor, and 
that they know of streets where more than half 
the children born alive perish under a year old." 

4. Of intemperance in England, Cardinal Man- 
ning wrote : — 

"It is no rhetoric nor exaggeration nor fanati- 
cism to affirm that intemperance in intoxicating 
drink is a vice that stands head and shoulders 
above all the vices by which we are afflicted ; and 
that ... we are preeminent in this scandal 
and shame; and that intemperance in intoxicat- 
ing drink may, in sad and sober truth, be called 
our national vice." 

5. Wages are frequently far below that mini- 
mum upon which the Catholic Church insists as 
necessary for decent living. 

In spite of recent improvements, sweating still 
persists to an appalling extent in the old coun- 
tries, not only in the case of home workers, but 
also in many factories and workshops. With the 
sweating evil goes child labor, and a Medical Su- 
perintendent Officer of Health tells us that : — 



338 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

"In the poorest and most unhealthy of our 
dwellings this variety of home work is carried on 
to an inconceivable extent, and in some streets 
one could hardly enter a house without seeing 
two, three, four or more children, varying in age 
from six to twelve years, sitting round a table, all 
intensely busy trying to earn a miserable pittance." 

Let me give an example from an American 
writer. He was in a glass factory where he noticed 
that the "carrying-in boys" had been replaced 
by automatic machinery. The reason of this, 
said the manager of the factory, was due to the 
fact they could not get the boys they needed. 
In another factory boys were still "carrying-in," 
and the reason of it there was that they could 
not manage to get on without them. When 
reminded that automatic machinery could ac- 
complish what was being done by boys, there 
came the ready reply : " Why should I tie up 
two or three thousand dollars of my capital to 
install machinery? So long as I can get any 
supply of lads I don't want to bother about 
machinery." 

Clearly the only way of stopping the employ- 
ment of boys, at enormous cost of life, in unhealthy 
factories, is legislation. We must not wait till 
Capital takes pity on Labor. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 339 

"In the United Kingdom," we are told that 
"out of a population of 43,000,000, as many as 
38,000,000 are poor. . . . The United Kingdom 
is seen to contain a great multitude of poor people 
veneered with a thin layer of the comfortable and 
the rich. ... In an average year eight million- 
naires die, leaving between them three times as 
much wealth as is left by 644,000 poor persons who 
die in one year. Again, in a single average year, 
the wealth left by the few rich people who die 
approaches in amount the aggregate property 
possessed by the whole of the living poor. . . . 
About one-seventieth part of the population owns 
far more than one-half of the entire accumulated 
wealth, public and private, of the United King- 
dom." (Chizza, " Money, Poverty, and Riches," 
pp. 43, 52, 72.) Mr. Hunter, referring to this same 
subject, tells us in his work on "Poverty" (p. 60) 
that ten millions of the people of the United 
States are sunk in poverty, while four millions 
of them are in receipt of relief. 

In 1854 there were not more than twenty-five 
millionnaires in New York City, their total for- 
tunes aggregating $43,000,000. There were not 
more than fifty millionnaires in the whole of the 
United States, their aggregate fortunes not ex- 
ceeding $80,000,000. To-day there are several 



340 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

individual fortunes of more than $80,000,000 
each. New York City alone is said to have over 
two thousand millionnaires, and the United States 
more than five thousand. The writer goes on 
to observe that : "it is only necessary to add 
that all the millionnaires of 1854, together with 
the half millionnaires, owned not more than about 
$100,000,000 out of the total wealth, which was 
at that time something like $10,000,000,000. In 
other words, they owned not more than one per 
cent of the wealth of the country. In 1890, when 
tne wealth of the country was slightly more than 
$65,000,000,000, Senator Ingalls could quote in the 
United States Senate a table showing that the 
millionnaires and half millionnaires of that time, 
31,100 persons in all, owned $36,250,000,000, or 
just fifty-six per cent of the entire wealth of the 
United States." 

A modern writer reminds us that "the figures 
furnished by the United States Bureau of Labor 
indicate that the wage in American cities is 
not sufficient to enable a man with a wife and 
family of three children under fourteen years of 
age to maintain a decent standard of living. In 
the larger cities $3 a day, and in the smaller, less 
expensive cities $2.50, are the least wages upon 
which a standard of decency can be maintained." 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 341 

" Corroborative evidence of these statements 
may readily be secured in any locality by personal 
observation which will convince even the most 
sceptical that the standard of American wages 
for semiskilled and unskilled labor is considerably 
below $2 a day." 

The immigrants accept the low wages and live 
on low standards without realizing the results of 
their action. They think in terms of Europe and 
accept employment at a wage far below that 
necessary for the maintenance of family efficiency, 
or even of family life in the United States. They 
are unacquainted with prices and the cost of 
living, and their judgment is therefore dependent 
not upon knowledge of American conditions, but 
upon that of foreign conditions. "The new- 
comers know nothing of a standard wage, and when 
work is scarce, they will offer to work for less than 
is paid common labor. Such was the case of a 
band of Croatians who offered their services to a 
firm in Pittsburg for $1.20 a day. When the 
superintendent heard it, he said, 'My God, what 
is the country coming to ! How can a man live 
in Pittsburg on $1.20 a day?' The foreman 
replied, 'Give them rye bread, a herring, and 
beer, and they are all right.'" 

The immigrants thus establish a "single man" 



342 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

foreign standard for American wages, and fore- 
men and superintendents, by using the foreigners, 
succeed in reducing the wages of the American 
workmen. " Shrewd superintendents are known, 
not only to take advantage of the influx of un- 
skilled labor to keep down day wages, but to re- 
duce the pay of skilled men by a gradually enforced 
system of promoting the Slavs." x I am told that 
95.4 per cent of the tailors on the Island of Man- 
hattan, N.Y., are or were foreigners, and in Chicago, 
81.8 per cent are so. 

" The silk mills in some parts of the anthracite 
region of Pennsylvania work night and day. It 
is much cheaper. As a manufacturer said, 'You 
get your money for 3 per cent.' Across the 
street from one of these mills stands a wooden 
miner's shanty. One night an old man and a 
little boy walked out on the porch of this home, 
and the old man leaned down and kissed the boy's 
forehead. 'Good night, father,' said the boy, 
and taking his dinner pail from where it stood 
on the porch, he walked slowly across the street, 
and into the lighted mill for the night shift. 
Twelve hours later he stumbled sleepily across 
the same street, into the miner's shanty, and went 

1 " The New Pittsburgers," Peter Roberts, Charities and the 
Commons, Jan. 2, 1909, Vol. 21, p. 538. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 343 

to bed. He had done his 'turn' on the night 
shift, away from home, all night long in the mill, 
with some rough women and some rougher men; 
then during the day he must sleep while he can, 
preparatory to another twelve hours in the mill. 
Children who work 'night shift' do not partici- 
pate in the duties and pleasures of home life. 
Child labour eliminates the child labourer from the 
life of the home, and therefore becomes a prob- 
lem of the family as well as a problem of the child." 

With instances such as these before us we may 
readily understand how the toiling classes snatch, 
like the drowning man, at any plank thrown out 
to them by the paid agitator; live they can- 
not without a living wage. At best there is 
before the toiler but a short existence. Mr. 
Scott Nealing assures us that: "The length of 
life is determined, not by any inherent incapacity 
in man to live, but by the maladjustment sur- 
rounding the living and working conditions. 

" There is also a considerable variation of the 
length of life within the same country. 1 Men 
born in American cities of native white parents 
live on the average only 31 years; those born of 
foreign white parents live 29.1 years ; while those 

^'Modern Social Condi tions," W. B. Bailey, New York, 
The Century Co., 1906, p. 227. 



344 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

born of colored parents live only 26.3 years. 
These figures will prove a rude shock to the con- 
tented citizens who were congratulating them- 
selves upon the supposition that men lived three- 
score and ten years or thereabouts. Men do not 
live even half of threescore and ten years in the 
modern American city, but die, on the average, 
when they reach the age of one score and ten. 

" Variation in the length of life thus occurs with 
locality, race, and sex, but from the standpoint 
of the present study no variation is of such pro- 
found significance as the variation between occu- 
pations. 

" Many men die because of the occupation in 
which they are engaged. There is a very direct 
connection between mortality and occupation." 1 

Consider for a moment the lives of those who in 
England card hooks and eyes for one penny a gross, 
who make our match-boxes (288 drawers, 288 
covers, 288 bits of sandpaper) for twopence half 
penny per gross, who birl and kink fringes on shawls 
for less than a penny per hour, who convert sugar 
bags into bran sacks for one penny per dozen, who 
make artificial flowers for threepence or fourpence 
the gross. Excluding domestic servants, there are 
in England 3| million wage-earning women, and 

1 Social Adjustment. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 345 

thousands of them receiving less than 7 shillings 
a week. Only to think of it — in London, where 
there is no room but in its churches, one fifth of 
the population underfed and overcrowded ! 

The list might be prolonged, but enough has, 
perhaps, been said to prove the indictment against 
us. 

Clearly, therefore, as Pope Leo told us, "a 
remedy must be found and found speedily " for 
such a condition of affairs. What is the remedy 
to be? I repeat, not Socialism. For Socialism, 
as I have endeavoured to show, would cripple the 
forces which are indispensable for social welfare. 

Not legislation alone. Legislation can but in- 
directly touch the deeper springs of national well- 
being. How can it foster kindly relations be- 
tween employer and employed, or strengthen 
conjugal fidelity, or kindle patriotism or inculcate 
generosity, manliness, thrift? It may help to 
remove obstacles to the development of these 
qualities, but it can scarcely do more. 

Moreover, legislation, unless supported by pub- 
lic opinion, is almost useless. You may pass 
your laws, but they will be evaded unless a 
healthy social conscience among the people in- 
sures their application. How much social legis- 
lation in the past has become a dead letter ow- 



346 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ing to the fact that the public, which may have 
pressed for a measure of reform, is apt to lose 
interest in it as soon as it is secured. 

What we want on both sides of the Atlantic is 
a highly developed social conscience — a trained 
alertness on the part of all citizens to use every 
fraction of their social influence in getting, first of 
all, present laws enforced. We need a consider- 
able development of private initiative all over the 
country. But again, no form of private initiative 
will suffice by itself to solve the social question. 
Private initiative cannot control the required 
resources ; and in the last resort it cannot exer- 
cise the needed compulsion. A thousand men 
unite in beneficent private enterprise : ten men 
stand out. Those ten may foil the efforts of the 
thousand. The selfish individualism of the few 
may actually make iniquitous profit from the 
efforts of the many. "In the kingdom of private 
social enterprise the rascal is king," to adapt an 
old proverb. The strong arm of the law must 
be brought in to dislodge him from his fastness. 
As Pope Leo says, "If employers lay unjust bur- 
dens upon their workmen or degrade them with 
conditions repugnant to their dignity as human 
beings it is right to invoke the assistance and 
authority of the law." 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 347 

Nor can the Christianity of Christ alone solve 
the social question. For the social question is 
not merely a moral or religious question. It is 
an economic and political question as well. It 
demands the positive action of civil authority. 
This point is insisted on by Leo XIII. I wish to 
lay stress on it here because I am presently going 
to insist upon the fact that the social question 
cannot be solved apart from Christian principles, 
and that the Church must have a large share in its 
solution. Some ardent Christians have jumped 
to the conclusion that it is the task of the Church 
to solve the social question unaided, and that the 
office of the civil authority consists merely in 
protecting mens' rights. This is not the case. 
State action, and private action, too, must com- 
bine with Church action in the solution of the 
social question. That is the common view of 
Catholics based on the teaching of Leo XIII. It 
would seem to be the only reasonable view. 

There can be no short cut, no simple remedy, 
no panacea. All possible forces must be brought 
to bear on the question; and they must be co- 
ordinated. Legislation and private endeavour and 
Christian enterprise must unite and combine, each 
supporting the other. 

Let us take these three instruments of social 



348 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

regeneration one by one, and see what each is 
actually doing, and how each might be further 
strengthened. Finally, we may consider how 
their action may be correlated and used to the 
best advantage so as to secure some reasonable 
solution of this terrible and terrifying problem. 

1. Legislation. 

Considerable progress has been made in social 
legislation during the past century. With the 
reaction against the old laissez faire principle 
came one measure after another destined to se- 
cure for the worker decent conditions of life and 
labour. 

I need not repeat the story of the passing of 
Factory laws in Europe and America. Sanitation 
and safety have to a large measure been secured 
to our workers; children have been rescued in 
many places from the worst horrors of factory 
slavery ; the hours of labour have been regulated 
at least to some extent. Contrast the conditions 
of labour now with those in the early part of the 
nineteenth century and it will be seen that enor- 
mous progress has been made. 

Glance for a moment at the list of laws that 
have been passed since England woke up to find 
herself a Democracy ! The Workmens' Compen- 
sation Act, an Old Age Pension Act, The Trades 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 349 

Disputes Act. I might lengthen out this catalogue 
of laws for the betterment of our people, but I 
will content myself with the mention of a few 
more measures which go to show how rapidly the 
Old Country has rattled along the road called 
Social Reform during the past decade. There 
is the Small Holdings Act, The House and Town- 
planning Act. Then there is The Childrens' 
Charter, and The Insurance Scheme, and a score 
of other measures, which time will reveal, for the 
uplifting, the betterment, and the comfort and 
happiness of the toilers in this great Workshop 
called the world. 

From England the principle of factory legis- 
lation spread to the United States, Germany, 
France, and Switzerland, and finally it established 
itself in all industrial countries, 

"Looking broadly now to labour legislation as it 
has occurred in this country/ ' says Mr. Carroll 
D. Wright, speaking of factory laws in the United 
States, "it may be well to sum up its general 
features. Such legislation has fixed the hours of 
labour for women and certain minors in manu- 
facturing establishments ; it has adjusted the 
contracts of labour; it has protected employees 
by insisting that all dangerous machinery shall 
be guarded; ... it has created boards of fac- 



350 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

tory inspectors, whose powers and duties have 
added much to the health and safety of the opera- 
tives ; it has in many instances provided for weekly 
payments, not only by municipalities, but by 
corporations; ... it has regulated the employ- 
ment of prisoners; protected the employment of 
children; exempted the wages of the wife and 
minor children from attachment ; established 
bureaus for statistics of labour ; provided for the 
ventilation of factories and workshops; estab- 
lished industrial schools and evening schools ; 
provided special transportation by railroads for 
workingmen; modified the common-law rules 
relative to the liability of employers for injuries 
of their employees; fixed the compensation of 
railroad corporations for negligently causing the 
death of employees, and has provided for their 
protection against accident and death.' ' 

After all this progress, however, we are still 
only in the beginning of our democratic campaign 
of life-saving. To conserve life and health, so- 
ciety must enormously increase its efforts along 
present lines and must open up new routes of 
progress. 

Perhaps there is no question demanding closer 
or more immediate study than the question of 
wages. And on this point I must say a word. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 351 

The "just wage" is a matter upon which the 
Catholic Church holds very strong views. She 
detests the old political economy which concen- 
trated its attention merely on production. She 
looks to the producer. The workman has a right 
to a living wage, and legislation should enforce 
that right. 

In England the demand by miners for a living 
minimum wage commands our sympathy, because 
the wage in many instances is low, taking into 
consideration the hardness of the work and its 
risks to life and limb. Besides, we must not 
forget that the profits from some of the British 
mines have been quite enormous. But it is a 
little difficult to see the justice of a demand for 
a minimum wage which every worker should 
receive, altogether irrespective of his efficiency 
and of the amount of work that he does. In 
one of the New York dailies I found the matter 
well put. Speaking on this question the writer 



"If that should be granted in the mines the 
same demand might be extended into other in- 
dustries and occupations, in some of which, indeed, 
conditions call for it at least as much as in the 
collieries. There would be established the prin- 
ciple for which many Socialists have contended, 



352 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

that every man, whether competent or incompe- 
tent, whether industrious or lazy, shall receive 
from somebody a sum sufficient for his needs." 
Now, it is true that every man ought to get a 
living income, but it is equally true that every 
able-bodied man ought to earn his wages. 

"It is true also that with the minimum wage 
established there would be a possibility of paying 
higher wages to the more efficient men, though 
more than one big strike has arisen from the ob- 
jection of labour unions to that very thing. The 
point is, however, that there would be nothing to 
prevent a lazy workman from ' soldiering' and 
producing only a fraction of what he could and 
should produce, feeling secure in the receipt of 
the minimum wage and in the assurance that his 
union on pain of striking would not permit his 
employer to dismiss him for inefficiency. The 
minimum wage would be all right if it were earned 
and if there were an assurance that it would be 
earned, or at least that workmen would faithfully 
do their work. To say that every man shall re- 
ceive at least so much and that there shall be no 
dismissals for incompetency would be to offer a 
temptation to idleness. 

" The Westminster Gazette, which strongly sup- 
ports the present government and which takes 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 353 

the radical side in such disputes as this, puts the 
matter well when it says that 'the right plan is 
to give the men collectively an incentive to keep 
up the output and to deal themselves with the 
lazy or inefficient worker whose malingering 
would reduce it.' That is indisputable; but 
the question is how the men are to be induced, 
under the minimum wage system, to establish 
and maintain such a standard. And that is a 
problem which may confront America as well as 
England." 

It is not my business to draw up a scheme of 
social legislation. I merely wish to point out 
that much remains to be studied. Let me fur- 
ther insist on the need of rescuing such legislation 
from its subordination to mere party interests. 
Valuable as the party system may be, it should 
not be allowed to prejudice the progress of bene- 
ficial legislation. We need a great diffusion of 
social conscience in the community which will 
elevate the vital interests of the nation above the 
strife of parties, and secure a consistent and well- 
calculated system of social laws. 

Here, in the United States, what splendid 

work might be done if only measures of industrial 

and social reform could be lifted above the plane 

of party politics ! What an object lesson America 

2a 



354 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

might be to the whole commercial world if only 
she would refuse to subordinate questions con- 
cerning the general welfare of the public to po- 
litical strife. 

But no one can look into the political arena 
to-day without feeling that men of all political 
creeds are getting closer together in these big 
questions dealing with the industrial life of the 
country; and I for one believe that the United 
States has it in her power to remedy this social 
and industrial trouble. She has the key to the 
secret lock, let her turn it in the wards, and bring 
forth her magic cure for the grievances and 
complaints from which the social organism is so 
severely suffering. 

2. Private Initiative. 

This brings me to the second factor in social 
progress; namely, private initiative. 

Private initiative has effected much, and is 
capable of effecting considerably more. It would 
be difficult to estimate the value of such activities 
as the Trades-unions, Cooperative Societies, 
National Temperance Leagues, National Asso- 
ciations for the Prevention of Consumption, 
Labour Unions, and other kindred organizations. 
Then, enumerate, if you can, all the Philanthropic 
and Charitable Institutions, such as Settlements, 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 355 

Clubs, Homes, which are scattered throughout 
the old countries, notably in England. 

If the rich are rich for the sake of the poor, and 
the poor poor for the sake of the rich, then, here 
in these multitudinous Settlements dotted up and 
down the slumdoms of our mammoth London 
metropolis, you will see how many of the well-to-do 
make use of the good things of this world by shar- 
ing them with their needy brothers and sisters. 

But besides these charitable institutions to 
which I refer, let me point out the service being 
done to the toiling classes by cooperative busi- 
ness concerns, by cooperation in the distribution 
as well as in the production of economic goods. 
Then there is the profit-sharing business by which 
the employee receives a share of any profit made 
by the employer beyond bare interest on capital. 

These profit-sharing and labour copartnership 
systems have on the whole worked well in England. 
Livesey, of Liverpool ; Hartley, of Aintree ; Clarke- 
Nicholls and Combs of London ; J. T. Taylor, of 
Batley, not to mention other firms, and numerous 
British Gas Companies, give their men an interest 
in their businesses. Profit-sharing and copart- 
nership introduce the much-needed human element 
into business ; they bring employer and employee 
into closer relationship, and they make Capital 



356 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

and Labour interested in the financial success of 
the same commercial enterprise. 

This method of doing business has given a set- 
back in many districts to Socialism, and has made 
men take pride in their firms, and put heart into 
their work. 

The plan of profit-sharing that is most generally 
adopted not only in England, but in the United 
States also, is the "cash bonus." "The portion of 
the profits to be divided," to put the case roughly, 
"is paid to the employees in proportion to their 
wages, or salaries, and the number of hours' work 
for the year." 

There is another new departure that has been 
very generally taken up by firms in the United 
States, and promises to work wonders for a better 
understanding between employer and employee — 
I refer to what is known as "Welfare Work," 
which includes an ample provision of all that is 
needed to put human conditions into business 
life. It would be impossible for me to give even 
a partial list of business houses where really splen- 
did opportunities of recreation and self-improve- 
ments are offered to their wage-earners. Through- 
out the States I have seen, to my ever growing 
amazement and delight, business establishment 
after business establishment furnished with well- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 357 

set-up club-rooms, libraries, recreation centres, 
wash rooms, rest rooms, dining halls, and what 
not for the convenience, comfort, and uplifting 
of employees. Not satisfied with all this I have 
found in the States a growing wish on the part of 
the heads of great firms to refine and beautify 
their factories, and so to rob industrial life of its 
deadly dull monotony. How humanizing is this ! 
My observations here have led me to the conclu- 
sion that in the United States the employer gets 
closer to his employee than his brother does in 
the old country. The human element, of which 
I make so much, is more in evidence in America 
than in England. Capital and labour are nearer 
to shaking hands, to chatting with each other, 
and to wishing each other good-luck and God- 
speed. 

But alas ! even after a social conscience of 
some kind has been created, after many legis- 
lative measures have been passed, and private 
enterprises have been launched with the object 
of improving the environment and of uplifting 
the social and industrial conditions of the wage- 
earning classes, we have mournfully to confess 
that we seem to be nearly as far off from a solu- 
tion of the Industrial Problem as when we first 
started out with such good will a hundred years 



358 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ago. During the past week I came across a case 
illustrating what I mean. A lad, ten years ago, 
was given a job out of compassion on one of the 
leading dailies in this great country. He started 
in the mail room and passed on thence to become 
office boy, and on again to counter clerk, and 
from that to subscription-solicitor, till, at the 
close of his tenth year of service, he has become 
advertising solicitor with an excellent salary. He 
is dissatisfied, and wants to leave and to better 
himself. He imagines he has not been treated 
fairly, that he should already be higher up the 
newspaper ladder, and be given a higher wage 
for his very ordinary services. 

If we did not personally come across intances 
such as this one would be disposed to think 
they were inventions of a diseased brain. 
Let me cite another example, showing how ut- 
terly impossible it is to rely on environment to 
create content in a wrong-headed man. I was 
travelling on a train and got into conversation 
with one of the company's servants. He was 
getting 106 dollars a month as a brakeman. 
Soon he would be promoted from brakeman to 
the post of freight conductor with 140 dollars 
a month, he had no doubt but before very long 
after that he would find himself nominated pas- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 359 

senger conductor of a Pullman train with 180 
or 200 dollars a month. When he retired from 
the service he would find a pension awaiting him. 
Meanwhile he was treated with the greatest con- 
sideration by his employers. He worked only 
fifteen days in the month, and not more than 150 
hours all told. He took his meals in the dining 
car, could order what he willed, and paid not more 
than a quarter. He looked the picture of health, 
and ought to have been thankful beyond measure 
for his lot in life. He was not an educated man ; 
he was just a handy, ready, unskilled workman 
to whom his employers had been considerate and 
kind. Was my friend contented, was he grate- 
ful? No, he would quit the company's service 
as soon as he could, and declared there was " noth- 
ing doing" where he was. 

When employers of labour find, in return for 
their schemes of copartnership, profit-sharing, 
and the rest of it, a disposition on the part of their 
men, with the very first opportunity, to go on 
strike ; when Capital taking Labour by the hand 
promotes it steadily, surely, with one result only, 
that Labour, waxing strong, revolts and kicks, it is 
no wonder that employers should sometimes lose 
heart, or grow soured, feeling they are up against 
a proposition which not even the very best will 



360 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

in the world can solve and straighten out. But 
we must all bear up and be resolved in season and 
out of season, in good and in evil repute, to do our 
best to make what is wrong right, and to leave 
as little excuse as possible for any appeal for the 
paid agitator whose mission it would seem is to 
create grievances which defy redress. 

What we need, again let me say it, is the wide 
diffusion of a social sense. We expend a consid- 
erable amount of energy on electioneering and 
party politics, but how many of us will lift a 
finger to cooperate in that social reform which 
should be raised far above the turmoil of party ? 

It is not only measures we want, but men to 
work them. Disinclination to take part in the 
work of social reform is found to characterize the 
majority of our people from the top rung to the 
bottom. The workers are the exception, and 
they have to contend with a mountain of apathy 
and indifference. The rich, with noble exceptions, 
are absorbed in pleasure hunting ; the middle 
class are sunk in routine ; the toilers are engaged 
in the grim fight for daily bread. Social respon- 
sibility fails to make itself felt. A general or 
local election, with its torrent of rhetorical plati- 
tudes, special pleading and windy sentiment, its 
scarcely concealed briberies, its gross exaggera- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 361 

tions, and its coloured news, will for a few weeks 
secure the public attention. But a general elec- 
tion is not a time when a sound civic sense is 
calculated to develop. And when it is past we 
revert to our former ways. 

Social reform is not a thing that can be put 
into commission with a stroke of the pen. It 
postulates a widespread social sense. It is a 
matter in which we must all be interested, and 
to which we must all in one way or another con- 
tribute. 

3. The Action of the Church. 

And now I come to that factor in social reform 
which is so often left out of account, and which 
the Socialist almost invariably ignores or depreci- 
ates ; I mean the influence of Christianity. 

And if I speak more particularly of the Cath- 
olic Church, let it not be thought that I under- 
value the Christian social action of those who are 
outside its fold. I believe that Christianity exists 
in its fullness and integrity in the Roman Catholic 
Church and in it alone. But I have nothing 
but praise and admiration for the social action of 
those who, though deprived of the fulness of Chris- 
tian teaching, are yet embodying Christianity, 
as they know it, in generous efforts for the amelio- 
ration of the people's miseries. But I must be 



362 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

allowed to speak of the Catholic Church, since 
it is her doctrine more particularly that I seek to 
explain in these Conferences, and it is her action 
in this and other lands with which I am most 
familiar. 

Catholic writers have ever insisted on the fact 
that Christianity must be the basis of true social 
well-being. They do not mean by this that the 
Church alone can effect such well-being: for in 
the Catholic view the State has positive functions 
to discharge in ameliorating the condition of the 
people. Neither do they mean that social well- 
being and temporal prosperity are the ultimate 
ends for which the Church exists. But what 
they do mean is that the social question cannot be 
solved apart from the Church, since the Church, 
in Newman's phrase, supplies "the binding prin- 
ciple of society." 

The Catholic Church protests against current 
Capitalism with its unmoral or immoral econo- 
mies, its false boast of freedom, its undis- 
guised utilitarianism. She protests against So- 
cialism which, in the ultimate analysis, is equally 
utilitarian. To both she says : "In cutting your- 
selves oh from me you are cutting yourselves 
off from what is most sound in European tradition. 
You are cutting yourselves off from a great spir- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 363 

itual force, without which society can make no 
real progress." Legislative machinery and eco- 
nomic ordinances cannot give men ideals, or per- 
manently and effectively check their greed, or 
teach the dignity and duty of labour, or maintain 
that purity of child life and of family life upon 
which social well-being depends. The Church 
can do all these things. Hence the Church is a 
necessary factor in social progress. 

I am speaking of modern times. I am not 
speaking of ancient civilizations or remote lands 
where Christianity has not yet secured a foothold. 
The people of Europe and America, like Constan- 
tine, have seen the cross in the sky, and can never 
be as though they had seen it not. Pre-Christian 
civilizations may have attained to some measure 
of well-being by cultivating the merely natural 
virtues. They groped for the truth and guided 
themselves by broken lights. If we, who have 
the fulness of light, turn away from it, our 
darkness will be complete. " The ' after-Chris- 
tian,' " writes Devar, " cannot attain even the 
measure of success that lay open to the 'fore- 
Christian.' " 

What then should be the attitude of a wise and 
just government to the Historic Church of Christ ? 
What should be the attitude toward that Church 



364 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

of the various forms of public and private social 
initiative which, as I have shown, are necessary 
to supplement social legislation ? 

I do not now speak of the divine claims of the 
Catholic Church. I do not raise the question of 
the ideal relations which should subsist between 
the religious and the civil powers. I take lower 
ground, and consider what, as a mere matter of 
expediency, and having in view the public welfare, 
should be the attitude of the Civil Power to the 
Catholic Church. I appeal even to those who 
have no understanding of or sympathy with our 
dogmatic position. 

The Catholic Church can evoke forces which 
the State is incapable of producing. Dealing as 
she does with the human conscience, she can make 
an intimate appeal to the heart of man which 
is beyond the power of any civil government. 
The Church which brings man into direct and 
supernatural relations with his Maker, can im- 
plant in him a basic principle of right living and 
a foundation of social service which no govern- 
ment can create. The Church fosters those vir- 
tues without which high civic life becomes im- 
possible. Hence, for the State to cripple the 
Church, to meddle with her inward constitution, 
to hamper her freedom of action, is suicidal. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 365 

Nothing can take her place. To repress her ac- 
tion is to tamper with the delicate springs upon 
which the State itself rests. A secular State de- 
velops an irrational panic at the supposed menace 
to patriotism involved in the doctrine, say, of the 
Immaculate Conception, or of Papal Infallibility, 
or some other Catholic dogma. Catholic schools 
are banned or hampered, Catholic public worship 
rendered difficult or impossible. The social in- 
fluence of the clergy is restricted, the charitable 
activity of the Church impeded. What is the 
result ? We have seen it in many European coun- 
tries often enough during the last half century. 
Public morality suffers, sanctions are removed, 
ideals are dimmed. The State finds that it has 
raised up for itself a host of evils with which it 
cannot cope. Again and again we have been 
presented with the spectacle of a bigoted govern- 
ment expending its energies on the suppression 
of dogma which it does not even understand. It 
neglects its proper work of promoting the people's 
temporal welfare in order to ruin their spiritual 
well-being. But the people who are thus emanci- 
pated from their reverence for God cease to retain 
their reverence for the state. The neglect of God's 
law leads to the neglect of human law. Passions 
are unchained and all authority is imperilled. 



366 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Governments sometimes let loose forces which 
they cannot control. When they turn God, the 
Moral Lawgiver, out of their public schools, they 
find revelations which astound our Juvenile Courts. 
They seek a remedy. They introduce ' ' Moral Hy- 
giene," or "Lay Morality" into the schools. 

But without God at the back of a law it fails 
when most needed. During the year of the big 
famine in Ireland there was no record of a single 
suicide; last year in the United States there 
were no less than 15,000 cases of self -slaughter, 
and 100,000 divorces ! Are we going to try and 
run a great Republic without God ! 

Again, sometimes a government becomes ob- 
sessed with the pernicious idea that State inter- 
ference should be pressed to its utmost limits in 
education, poor relief, and so forth. Let there 
be no schools but government schools, no orphan- 
ages save government orphanages, no poor relief 
save government poor relief. What is the result ? 
The result is much bickering and strife and no 
real progress in education, poor relief, or any 
other social function. Wise men see the danger 
and the folly of attempting to cripple the spir- 
itual forces upon which national well-being de- 
pends. They deprecate religious persecution even 
though they do not share the religious faith which 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 367 

is persecuted. Let me quote the words of one of 
our foremost educational authorities in England, 
Professor Sadler : — 

"The denominational schools would be the 
means of preserving the educational and moral 
tradition which has grown out of a religious way 
of life, and which appeals to many temperaments 
(though not to all) as does no other character- 
forming influence in education. It is in these 
schools too that the teaching of the organized 
religious bodies, in its application to the needs of 
young people, would find continuity and develop- 
ment. . . . 

"For the nation to adopt the policy of priv- 
ileged secularism would be to miss a great op- 
portunity. England may, if she wishes, set an 
example to the world in the generosity and effi- 
ciency of her educational system. She, as can 
no other great nation, may unite in tolerant 
synthesis diverse types of school and diverse 
kinds of educational influence, and in this, as in 
other branches of public policy, preserve by a bold 
combination of opposites her historical continuity 
and her public peace." (Presidential Address to 
the Teachers 7 Guild, 1909.) 

These are wise words, inspired by a true pa- 
triotism. They are the words of one who is zeal- 



368 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

ous for true social well-being, irrespective of creed 
or country. As in education, so in poor relief, 
State action is called for, but such action must not 
be employed to stifle the initiative that springs 
from religious conviction. If it is, then the gov- 
ernment which claimed to do all will find that its 
task has grown beyond all possibility of fulfil- 
ment. The French government turns out the 
nuns from the hospitals — and finds itself con- 
strained to employ the services of convicts as 
nurses. The French government grasps at the 
thousand million of the congregations. The sum 
is discovered to be non-existent ; but the French 
government finds itself charged with the care of 
the thousands of helpless children and sufferers 
who were previously given shelter and education 
by the Congregations. This is scarcely social 
progress. 

Even well-intentioned Socialists in every coun- 
try are apt to have the same prejudice in favour 
of unification, the same suspicion of private re- 
ligious enterprise. Even when they accept it as 
inevitable for the present, they regard it as a tem- 
porary expedient, to be superseded in time by 
State action. Catholics regard the social function 
of their religion as a permanent function. A 
greater or less degree of State inspection and con- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 369 

trol may be necessary; but the Catholic spirit 
must always embody itself in educational, reform- 
atory and charitable institutions of one kind or 
another. That is a permanent social need. 

The Catholic spirit has so embodied itself in 
England and in the United States. It is making 
a solid and valuable contribution to the solution 
of the social question. I have already spoken of 
the numerous Catholic institutions which exist 
for the direct alleviation of temporal misfortunes. 
They embody an amount of self-sacrifice, of per- 
sonal service, of wise and economical adminis- 
tration, of true insight into human needs which 
could not be supplied by an army of government 
officials. If we Catholics have not that propor- 
tion of lay social workers among us which might 
be expected, it is largely because those, who, if 
they belonged to other religious bodies, would 
become lay social workers, as a matter of fact 
with us become members of religious orders. 
Hence their work is not so much in the public 
eye ; yet it is lifted into a higher plane and gains 
in those qualities which give social work its 
value. 

But let us penetrate more deeply into the se- 
cret of the social work which the Catholic Church 
is carrying on in countries on both sides the 
2b 



370 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

Atlantic. What is its mainspring? Is it in- 
spired by ideals of mere temporal prosperity? or 
has it an intrinsic value of its own not to be found 
in the ideals of time ? 

The greatest statesmen in all ages have under- 
stood and prized the social force, the social cohe- 
sion, and the stimulus to duty which spring from 
the Catholic conception of life. Constantine 
knew it ; Napoleon knew it ; Washington knew 
it ; present-day statesmen in the United States 
know it. It is the second-rate politician who 
ignores it. The Catholic Church is the stay and 
support of States, the abiding foundation of civic 
duty and social service. Belief in the Fatherhood 
of God creates the Brotherhood of man. Rever- 
ence for God's authority implies reverence for 
that ' authority which God has delegated to civil 
rulers. No purely " rational" grounds for civic 
obedience and social service have yet been dis- 
covered. St. Augustine long ago pointed to the 
beneficent influence of the Church. 

"Let those who say that the doctrine of Christ 
is adverse to the State . . . show us an army 
of soldiers such as the doctrine of Christ has com- 
manded them to be, let them show us such gov- 
ernors of provinces, such husbands and wives, 
such parents and children, such masters and ser- 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 371 

vants, such kings, such judges as the Christian 
teaching would have them to be, nay, such con- 
tributors of all manner of taxes and such gatherers 
of taxes ; and then let them have the face, if they 
can, to tell us that such teaching is injurious to 
the State." (Ep. 138 ad Marcellinum.) 

Truth to tell, with us Catholics patriotism is 
something more than a sentiment, a tradition. 
It is a growth of our creed. It is that rare, rich 
bloom whose roots lie buried deep in the virgin 
soil of our holy religion. Hence the words so 
often quoted: "The better the Catholic the 
better the citizen." Secularists may try to snatch 
the flower from the stem and decorate their own 
philosophy with it, but the flower will wither. It 
needs its native soil. 

The Catholic Church is doing an enormous 
social work in the United States and in England 
either directly by means of her own children, or 
indirectly by means of those who retain some part 
of her beliefs and her traditions. Such work is 
a great national asset ; to trifle with it would be 
to provoke national disaster. 

And if you point to Catholics who are making 
no contribution to social welfare — to Catholics 
who either give themselves up to self-indulgence 
and ease, or have fallen below the line of efficiency 



372 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

and occupy our prisons and reformatories — then 
I answer that these men have failed not because 
of their Catholicism, but in spite of it. And I 
would ask our critics to remember the heavy social 
disabilities which still press upon Catholics in so 
many forms in the old country. We are still to a 
large extent ostracized. Our children are shut out 
from educational advantages which are within 
the reach of others; our professional men still 
find, in too many cases, that their faith is a bar 
to their advancement. Moreover, the numbing 
effects of a far more severe persecution still re- 
main with us. Give us a chance, give us time, 
give us fair play, and you will see that St. Augus- 
tine spoke truth, and that the Catholic spirit is 
society's best asset. 

Certainly no body of men, no organization on 
this earth is so whole-heartedly loyal to its flag 
as Catholics are. In the United States, from the 
Hudson to the Yukon, is stretched one long line 
of Catholic American citizens loyal and true to 
the Stars and the Stripes; and from the Golden 
Gates in the south to the Arctic Circle in the north 
there is drawn up another line for defence of coun- 
try, equally brave, equally strong. What a match- 
less force is the Old Church ! Fifteen millions 
and more of citizens recruited into one mighty 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 373 

army, all inspired by the same faith, all actuated 
by the same motives in this land stretching from 
the Atlantic to the Pacific ! Be sure, that if 
ever a last shot, which God avert, were to be 
fired for the Star-spangled Banner, the man to 
fire it would be not a Socialist, but a Catholic. 

Such, then, is the Catholic solution of the social 
question, — the Church, the State, and Private 
Initiative working in harmonious concord. It would 
be going beyond my province to state what in 
detail should be the reforms undertaken by the 
Triple Alliance formed by the united action of 
Church, State, and Private Enterprise. But this 
much I may venture to say, that no concerted 
action of any kind can be effective and lasting in 
its results unless it becomes penetrated and per- 
meated with the spirit of Christian justice and 
Christian charity. I say penetrated and perme- 
ated not merely with justice as laid down in 
law books, but as written on the tablets of the 
heart, in the Gospel of Christ, and in the spirit 
of His teaching. Nor is this enough without its 
association with the Charity of Christ, for without 
this interior law of charity, justice may strike too 
hard a bargain to satisfy human nature as actually 
it is constituted. 

Instead, then, of going on to Socialism with all 



374 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

its blindness to consequences destructive of social 
and industrial well-being, let us come back to 
Christ with His laws adjusting relations between 
Capital and Labour. 

Christ, I say, and Christ only, can be Arbi- 
trator in the case before us, in the conflict be- 
tween Larger Dividends and Higher Wages. 

If only employers and employees were to heed 
Christ's ruling, they would both begin to realize 
that there can be no permanent settlement of the 
industrial problem till they both alike accept His 
principles of justice, equity, and charity. My 
final word, then, to all persons interested in the 
social and industrial problems of the day is this : — 

To employers I would say : Rally to the stand- 
ard of Christ, the civilized world's Great 
Reformer, Inspirer, and Liberator. Exchange 
the rivalry between wealth and wages for a 
fairer division of the profits. Instead of mak- 
ing exorbitant profits your aim, let profit- 
sharing be your ambition. Come once more to 
realize that the Fatherhood of God means a 
Brotherhood inspired and actuated by a spirit of 
justice and charity manifesting itself in sympa- 
thy, patience, and forbearance with all men. 
You are only the stewards of God. One day 
you will have to give an account of your goods. 



SOCIALISM AND SOCIAL REFORMATION 375 

You will have to give an account of how you 
shared them with the men who helped you win 
them. 

To wage-earners, men and women, I would say : 
You have a right to form unions and by means 
of unions to enforce your just demands for a 
living wage and human conditions both in your 
workshops and in your homes. 

But there is a word of warning which you 
must let me add : it is a word which I utter as a 
friend of the workingman, as a friend who in 
season and out of season has lifted his voice in 
behalf of the toiling masses, and who during 
these Conferences has had nothing more at heart 
than to win a hearing for the toilers. That 
word of warning is : in your labour unions, in your 
disputes with your employers, nay, even in the 
sad necessity of a strike, never, never commit 
yourselves to the leadership of men who are the 
enemies of Christ and who, if true to their prin- 
ciples, must rob you of the dearest possession 
you have, your Christian Faith. 

To all I would say, no matter what our posi- 
tion and work in life may be, let us make it our 
ambition, as it is our mission, to teach all the 
world that we all have a common origin and a 
common destiny; that the same human nature 



376 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY 

in us has the same yearnings for peace, rest, and 
happiness ; that we all have the same Saviour, 
that in less than no time our present differences will 
vanish like a dream, and that then, if we be worthy, 
shadows will give place to realities, faith shall 
pass into vision, hope shall be more than realized, 
and all men will discover that the conflicts of 
time were meant to be victories for eternity, and 
the rivalry of the Brotherhood, a rivalry of ser- 
vice in the interests of our common Father in 
Heaven, whose Home and whose love shall be 
ours throughout the everlasting day of Eternity. 



INDEX 



Absenteeism, attitude of Catho- 
lic Church toward, 303. 

Absolute right of property, criti- 
cism of theory of, 305-306, 
309. 

Accidents, industrial, compen- 
sation of employees for, 302. 

Alaska, Socalism in, 84, 198- 
203, 280-281. 

Altruism, identity of Christian 
charity and, 26. 

Ambrose, St., misconstruction 
of, meaning of, by Socialists, 
232-233. 

America, divorce practices in, 
131 ; social conditions among 
the poor in, 339-345. 

Ancillon, M., quoted on the 
Papacy in the Middle Ages, 
30. 

Anselm, St., 23. 

Anti-religious harangues of so- 
cialist speakers, 318-322. 

Antoine, Pere, on State exer- 
cise of right of arbitration, 
303-304. 

Aristotle, biological concept of 
society found in, 51. 

Army, false analogy drawn be- 
tween socialization of private 
property and the, 275, 276. 

Artists, question of pay of, for 
their labour, 272-273, 327- 
328. 

Asino, revolting parodies of Chris- 
tian institutions in the, 164. 



Atheism, alliance between So- 
cialism and, 45-46, 158, 159, 
160 ff. 

Atheists, appeals of Socialism to, 
318-320. 

Augustine, St., and the biologi- 
cal concept of society, 51 ; 
on the Church as a beneficent 
influence in the State, 370- 
371. 

Authority, form of civil, de- 
manded by God, 62. 

Aveling, Dr., on opposition of 
Socialism to Capitalism and 
Christianity, 158. 



Bailey, W. B., "Modern Social 
Conditions" by, quoted, 342- 
343. 

Ball, Sidney, Fabian Tract by, 
quoted, 189-190. 

Bax, Belfort, quoted, 157, 163, 
166 ; on the Christian Social- 
ist as "a singular hybrid," 
210. 

Bebel, Ferdinand August, on 
the obliteration of the indi- 
vidual, 79-80 ; on man's desire 
for immediate good, 101 ; on 
social position of children, 134 ; 
on antagonism of Socialism 
to Christianity, 158, 162. 

Bellamy, Edward, Cooperative 
Commonwealth described by, 
56 ; mentioned, 324. 



377 



378 



INDEX 



Belloc, quoted on position of 
Socialism as to private capital, 
245-246 ; An Examination of 
Socialism by, quoted, 285-286. 

Berger, Victor, 280. 

Bernstein, on Marxism and reli- 
gion, 156. 

Biological concept of society, 
47-55. 

Blatchford, Robert, on the Chris- 
tian doctrine as a mass of 
error, 162 ; attacks on Chris- 
tianity by, circulated by In- 
dependent Labour Party, 183 ; 
the Socialism of, considered 
with regard to religion, 185 ff. ; 
Rev. R. J. Campbell's ap- 
proval of, 225. 

Burkitt, Professor, 208 n. 



Call, New York, quoted, 203- 
204. 

Campbell, R. J., "Christianity 
and Social Order" of, 187; 
quoted, 225 ; neglect of super- 
natural side of Christ's teach- 
ing by, 228-229. 

Capitalism, reasons attributed to, 
for liberality to religious bodies, 
205. See Private property. 

Capitalistic system, work per- 
formed under, could not be 
done by Socialism, 259 ; need 
of reformation of, 282 ; so- 
cial wrongs due to abuses of, 
and not to system itself, 333- 
334. 

Cash bonus plan of profit-shar- 
ing, 356. 

Catholicism, position of, under 
a socialist regime in England, 
192-197. See Church, the 
Catholic. 

Cathrein, Father, quoted, 75 ; 
cited, 291. 



Character, development of, stimu- 
lated by private ownership, 
261. 

Charity, duties of, 299-303. 

Charity Organization Society, 
48. 

Chicago, material for socialistic 
arguments found among chil- 
dren of, 256-257. 

Child labour, in England, 337- 
338 ; in Pennsylvania silk 
mills, 342-343. 

Children, position of, in regard 
to parents and the family, 
in the view of the Church, 
132-134 ; in the socialist view, 
134-136; the matter of re- 
stricting number of, 142-143. 

Chizza, "Money, Poverty, and 
Riches" by, quoted, 339. 

Christ, the socialist and the 
Catholic views of religion of, 
217 ff . ; the miracles of, 220- 
223; the Parables of, 223- 
224 ; is the final arbitrator 
and adjuster of the relations 
between capital and labour, 
374. 

Christianity, principles of So- 
cialism set over against those 
of, 38-39 ; proposed super- 
session of, by Socialism, 155 ff, ; 
the "new Christianity" of 
the Socialists, 177-178; the 
real, rightly held to be the 
most dreaded enemy of So- 
cialism, 178 ; the fate of, under 
a socialistic regime, 192-197 ; 
total incompatibility of So- 
cialism and, 203-207. 

Christian Socialism, repudiation 
of, by thoroughgoing Socialists, 
198-202; called a contradic- 
tion in terms, 204 ; slight 
chance held by, of counter- 
acting anti-Christian tone of 
current Socialism, 208; in so 



INDEX 



379 



far as really socialistic, has 
abandoned most characteristic 
and vital parts of Christianity, 
208, 213 ff. ; socialist leaders 
quoted on, 210-211 ; slightness 
of contribution of, to cause of 
Socialism, 211 ; the other- 
worldliness of true Christian 
religion contrasted with doc- 
trines of, 215 ff . ; views of, 
concerning the miracles of 
Christ, 220-223 ; concerning 
the Parables, 223-224; errors 
in reasoning of, concerning 
the Kingdom of God, 224 ff . ; 
misconstruction by, of de- 
nunciations of the Prophets 
as a warrant for Socialism, 
227 ; type of, which denies 
to Christ any object save that 
of material reform, neglecting 
the supernatural, 228-229 ; 
refutation of arguments of, as 
to the early Church and the 
Fathers, 229-233 ; insecure 
foundations of claims concern- 
ing the Religious Orders as 
socialistic, 233-235 ; attitude 
of the Catholic Church toward 
theory of, 235-236. 

Christian Socialist, The, paper 
called, 201. 

Christian Socialist League, the, 
209. 

Church, the Catholic, debt of 
the workingman to, 20-23 ; 
the Catholic democracy which 
sprang from, 23-25 ; absence 
of class distinctions in, 24-25 ; 
the foundations of modern 
civilization laid by, 26 ; on 
the side of the workingman 
now as earlier, 32 ; the gulf 
between Socialism and, 40 ff. ; 
place of, in the socialist 
scheme, 46-47; relation be- 
tween the individual and, in 



the Catholic point of view, 
53 ; the State a God-given in- 
stitution according to stand- 
point of, 69-71 ; value of the 
individual laid stress on by, 
81-82; ideal held up to the 
individual by, 85-87 ; refuta- 
tion of charges against, of 
encouraging in men indiffer- 
ence to worldly conditions, 
90-91 ; glorious record of, 
concerning Christian charity, 
91-93 ; elevation of the family 
by, 120 ff. ; the union between 
Christ and, as a standard for 
gauging Tightness and sacred- 
ness of wedded life, 122-125; 
the source of the present-day 
position of woman, 126-127 ; 
attitude of, toward divorce, 
127-132; chief reason for 
opposing Socialism found in 
the latter's menace to the 
family, 150-152 ; attitude of, 
toward so-called Christian So- 
cialism, 198 ff., 235-236; so- 
cialistic principles attributed 
to the early, 229-230; right 
to own private capital upheld 
by, 246 ff., 294 ff . ; teaching 
as to right of man to acquire 
whatever is necessary for main- 
tenance of his life, 249-250; 
the authority of accumulated 
experience behind utterances 
of, 307-308; judgment of, 
as to the wisdom of possession 
of private capital, 308-309 ; 
position occupied by, between 
the two conflicting dogmas 
of ownership, 310-311 ; State 
action and private action 
should combine with, to solve 
the social question, 347 ; ac- 
tion of, in social reform, 
361 ff. ; reasons why a neces- 
sary factor in social progress, 



380 



INDEX 



362-363; proper attitude to 
be taken by the State toward, 
363-365 ; social work con- 
sidered a permanent function 
by, 368-369; patriotism the 
mainspring of the social work 
of, 370-373. 

Church Socialist Quarterly, quoted 
and cited, 207 n., 209. 

Clarion, anti-Christianity of So- 
cialism advocated in the, 185 ff . 

Class religion, the prospective, 
314. 

Clement VII, Pope, divorce re- 
fused to Henry VIII by, 128. 

Clergymen, mistake made by, in 
taking to Socialism, 208-209. 

Clifford, Dr., Fabian tracts of, 
187. 

Collectivism, Christian Social- 
ism a form of, 198. 

Community of goods attributed 
to the early Church, 230. 

Competition, desirability of, 274. 

Constitution, worth of the Ameri- 
can, 71. 

Control of property, and use of, 
294-297. 

Cooperative business concerns, 
355. 

Cooperative Commonwealth, con- 
ditions in the ideal socialistic, 
46-59 ; railways, land, and 
farming in the, 57-58 ; the 
ideal of Socialism, 240 ; ques- 
tion of possibility of organiz- 
ing, 323-325. 

Copartnership systems, 355-356. 

Cutts, Dr., quoted, 26-27. 



Dearmer, Percy, Fabian Tract 
by, quoted, 217-218, 220- 
221, 222; arguments of, that 
the Church Fathers inculcated 
Socialism, 231-232. 



Death rate in London, 336. 

Debts, injustice of putting off 
payment of, 299. 

Democracy, spirit of, created 
by the Catholic Church, 23- 
27 ; true individualism a neces- 
sary basis of sound, 79. 

Denominational schools, 195-197, 
366, 367. 

Department store, declamations 
of socialist orators against 
the, 316-318. 

Devas, C. S., quoted and cited, 
119, 126, 136-137, 363. 

Divorce, wrongness of civil law 
of complete, 128-129. 

Drage, Geoffrey, quoted, 213. 

Duties of ownership, 296 ff. 



E 



Economic Liberalism, anti-Catho- 
lic wave of, 305. 

Education of children, 133-136; 
Catholic, under a socialist 
regime, 194-197 ; superiority of 
Catholic to secular, 195-197; 
State interference in, 366-367. 

Employers, question of right 
of, to residual surplus value, 
269-272; duties of, 302-303. 

Engels, F., quoted on real sig- 
nificance of Socialism, 37 ; an- 
tagonism of, to Christianity, 
156, 157 ; on private property, 
religion, and marriage as blocks 
in the way of Socialism, 240. 

England, practical identity of 
Socialism in, with the con- 
tinental brand, 180 ; social con- 
ditions in, 336-338. 

Enterprise, effects of Christian- 
ity and of Socialism on, con- 
trasted, 94-96. 

Established Church, interest of 
clergymen of, in social evils, 
208. 



INDEX 



381 



Evolution, materialistic idea of, 
held by Socialism, 43-45. 

Example, duties pertaining to, 
303. 



F 



Fabian Society, considered with 
regard to religion, 187-195 ; 
harmless character of one group 
of members, 187-188 ; re- 
sults lacking in the way of 
political organization of work- 
ing classes, 188-189 ; secular- 
ism of, as shown in writings 
of certain members, 189-190. 

Factory legislation in Europe 
and America, 348-350. 

Family, place of, in the so- 
cialistic scheme, 46-47 ; es- 
sential qualities of, as an in- 
stitution, 119-120; elevation 
of, to a higher plane by the 
Catholic Church, 120 ff. ; ideal 
life of the, introduced by 
Christ, 126 ; woman given her 
right position in, by Chris- 
tianity, 126-127 ; position of 
children in regard to the, 132- 
134 ; viewed as a failure by 
Socialists, 140-141 ; attack of 
Socialism on the, 143 ff . ; is 
the great obstacle in the way 
of Socialism, 149-150 ; sup- 
posed effect of Socialism on the, 
195-197; as a God-given in- 
stitution, justifies right to 
private ownership of property, 
252-253 ; ignorance of human 
nature shown by Socialism 
in protests against, 262 ff . ; 
a school for the practice of 
citizenship, 263. 

Farmers and the socialist State, 
57-58, 315-316. 

Farrar, "Hulsean Lectures" by, 
quoted, 22. 



Fathers, Christian, wrongly cited 
concerning position of women, 
126 ; charged with inculcating 
pure Socialism, 229-233; ef- 
forts of Socialists to enlist 
in their cause, 246-247. 

Ferri, attack on religion by, 160. 

Feudalism, part enacted by, 
in mediaeval Europe, 19. 

France, object-lesson concerning 
State interference in schools 
from, 368. 

Freedom, paralysis of man's, 
by Socialism, 110-112, 283 ff. 



Garriguet, Abbe 1 , "Regime de 
la Propriete" by, 303 n. ; 
criticism by, of theory of 
absolute right of property, 
305-306. 

George, David Lloyd, 200. 

George, Henry, on Socialism 
as opposed to religion, 161 ; 
arguments of, concerning con- 
trol of property, 292-294. 

German Socialists, attacks of, 
on religion, 184. 

Glasier, Bruce, on the relations 
between Socialism and reli- 
gion, 165-166. 

God, existence of a personal, 
denied by Socialism, 43 ; ig- 
noring of, leads to an alliance 
with atheism, 45-46 ; the 
Catholic view of the State 
based on belief in existence of, 
60-61 ; question of form of 
government demanded by, 62 ; 
according to designs of, man 
must own property, 248. 

Goldstein, "Socialism" by, 
quoted, 163. 

Gorst, Sir John, on infant mor- 
tality among the poor of Eng- 
land, 337, 



382 



INDEX 



Government, question of form 
of, demanded by God, 62. 

Gregory the Great, Pope, 30. 

Gronland, Horace, quoted, 102. 

Guizot, on influence of the Church 
through the ages, 23. 



H 



Hardie, Keir, on the value of 
an ideal. 73 ; on Socialism 
and religion, 175 ; on the 
Independent Labour Party as 
a socialist organization and 
a religion, 182. 

Headlam, Stewart, 166, 187, 
188; quoted, 212, 221, 223. 

Herder, quoted on the Papacy 
in the Middle Ages, 31. 

Herrons, G. S., on Christianity 
as a parasite, 162, 176. 

Hillquit, Morris, quoted, 17, 
39 ; on socialist theory of 
evolution, 43-45 ; on the rela- 
tion of the individual to the 
State, 50-51 ; on the socialist 
State, 56-57; on the "Evo- 
lution of the Moral Sense," 
167-171 ; mentioned, 324, 327. 

Home, the, as a pillar of the 
State, 118; power of the 
word, 140 ; disorganization of 
the, by Socialism, 143 ff. 

Housing of the poor in England, 
336. 

Human element in business, 
355, 357. 

Human nature, power of So- 
cialism and of Christianity 
on, 96-100. 

Hunter, Robert, on the greatness 
of Bebel, 158 ; on the an- 
tagonism of Socialism to Chris- 
tianity, 158 ; on the Fabian 
Society, 188-189 ; on poverty 
in the United States, 339. 



Husslein, Father Joseph, articles 
by, 167. 

Hyndman, H. M., on Christian- 
ity as a dead creed, 210. 



Ideal, the value of an, 72-73; 
the Socialist and the Chris- 
tian, contrasted, 74, 82, 85- 
87, 109-110; the one and only, 
for suffering humanity is Jesus 
the Saviour, 89 ; works of 
Christian charity resulting from 
the true Christian ideal, 91-93. 

Immigrants and rate of wages, 
341-342. 

Independence, loss of, under 
a socialistic regime, 283-287. 

Independent Labour Party, na- 
ture of the "religion" taught 
by, 181-185. 

Individual, position of the, un- 
der the socialist regime, 48- 
49 ; error in the socialist 
view of, 52 ; position of, as 
a member of the Church and 
as a citizen, 53-54 ; claims of 
the, must not be forgotten or 
ignored, 76-77 ; the ideal held 
up to the, by the Church, 85- 
87 ; the Christian message 
primarily for the, and not for 
society, 215-216; obligations 
and rights of, outside of the 
State, 249 ; primary right of, 
to acquire whatever is neces- 
sary for maintenance of his 
life, 250; right of, to self- 
development, 251-252. 

Individualism, impossibility of 
the philosophy of a pure, 75 ; 
reaction against, carried to 
an extreme by Socialism, 75- 
76; a true, is the necessary 
basis of sound Democracy, 
79 ; value of, from viewpoint 



INDEX 



383 



of the Church, 81-82; the 
obliteration of, by Socialism 
an inversion of the natural 
order, 110-112. 

"Industrial Democracy," men- 
tioned, 331. 

Infant mortality in England, 
336-337. 

Intemperance in England, 337. 

International Socialist Review, il- 
lustration in, 278-279. 

Ireland, marriage lessons to be 
learned from, 131, 139-140. 

Isaias, invectives of, miscon- 
strued into a divine warrant 
for Socialism, 227. 



Justice, duties of, among social 
obligations in Catholic Church 
system, 299. 



Kant, Immanuel, 63. 

Kelleher, quoted, 39. 

Ketteler, Bishop, 305. 

Kingdom of God, nature of the, 
established by Christ, 214- 
215 ; use of phrase, as an 
equivalent of the socialist 
State, 224-225 ; attempts made 
to justify use, by reference to 
the Bible, 225-227; socialistic 
basis for, discovered in de- 
nunciations of the Prophets, 
227. 

Klein, Nicholas, Socialist Primer 
by, 135. 

Klondike, Socialism in the, 198- 
200, 280-281. 



Labourers, wages of, 299. See 

Workingmen. 
Labour unions, 354, 375. 



Lafargue, Paul, quoted, 16-17. 

La Monte, R. R., "Socialism, 
Positive and Negative," by, 
168-169. 

Land, use of, in the socialist 
State, 57. 

Langton, Cardinal Stephen, 24. 

Leatham, J., quoted, 203, 210. 

Lecky, W. E. H., quoted, 26. 

Legislation, remedy for social 
wrongs not to be found solely 
in, 345-346 ; should be com- 
bined with work by the Church 
and by individuals, 347 ; prog- 
ress made in social, in past 
century, 348-350. 

Leibnitz, quoted, 43. 

Leo XIII, Pope, Encyclicals of, 
13, 32-34, 41, 71, 113-114, 
133-134, 151-152, 258, 259, 
277 ; on the use of the term 
"Christian Socialism," 236; 
on private ownership of prop- 
erty, 286-287, 296; on the 
labourer and his wage, 299 ; 
on remedying present-day so- 
cial wrongs, 345, 346, 347. 

Le Pay, French Socialist, cited, 
139. 

Liebknecht, proclaims alliance 
of Socialism and atheism, 159. 

Life, average length of, among 
poor in cities, 343-344 ; legis- 
lation looking to conserva- 
tion of, 348-350. 

Lucan, maxim of, quoted, 81. 



M 



MacDonald, J. Ramsay, quoted, 
46-47 ; on Ferri's attitude tow- 
ard religion, capitalism, mar- 
riage, and private property, 
160; on Socialism and reli- 
gion, 175. 

Manning, Cardinal, 23, 337. 



384 



INDEX 



Marriage, a great sacrament 
under the Church, 120-121, 
126 ; as a mere social contract, 
is shorn of beauty and becomes 
a market good, 122 ; Tightness 
and sacredness of, gauged by 
union between Christ and His 
Church, 122-125 ; divorce as 
a violation of the sanctity of, 
128-132 ; socialist teachings 
concerning, 144-147. 

Marx, Karl, undiminished in- 
fluence of, 155 ; anti-Chris- 
tian tone of Socialism of, 156 ; 
holds that abolition of reli- 
gion is necessary for true happi- 
ness of the people, 157. 

Masterman, C. F. G., on the 
value of an ideal, 72-73. 

"Merrie England," Blatchford's, 
185. 

Middle Ages, position of labour 
in the, 18-20. 

Millerand, on the separateness 
of Socialism and Christian 
Socialism, 211. 

Millionnaires, numbers of, 339- 
340. 

Milman, H., quoted, 29-30. 

Ming, quoted, 119-120. 

Minimum wage, the matter of 
a, 351-353. 

Miracles of Christ, view of, from 
standpoint of Christian So- 
cialists, 220-223. 

Monastic communities, distinc- 
tion between Socialism and, 
233-235. 



N 



Natural equity, duties of, 302- 
303. 

Nearing, Scott, quoted, 343. 

Newman, Cardinal, cited, 17 ; 
on the individuality of the 
human soul, 77-79 ; on the 



inspiration derived from hopes 

of a future world, 106. 
New York City, millionnaires 

in, 339-340. 
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 48. 



Occupation, acquisition of prop- 
erty by method of, 290-293. 

Organization of the socialist 
State, question of the, 323- 
325. 

"Origin of the Family, The," 
socialist book, 144-145. 

Other -worldliness in religion 
founded by Christ, 215-216. 

Ownership of property, natural 
desire for, strangled by So- 
cialism, 112-113; theory of 
Socialism and of the Church 
concerning, 112-114; So- 

cialism and the rights of, 
237 ff . ; recognized methods 
of establishing rights of, 289- 
293 ; duties accompanying, 
297 ff . ; the obligation to pay 
a just wage, 299 ; payment of 
just debts, 299 ; .duties of 
charity, 299-303; duty of 
the State toward rights of, 
303-304. See Private prop- 
erty. 



Papacy, attitude of, toward capi- 
tal and labour, 14 ff . ; part taken 
by, in the Church's defence 
of popular liberty, 27-32 ; 
Leo XIII's Encyclical on 
Labour illustrates attitude of, 
concerning capital and labour, 
32-34; the Socialist Philos- 
opher and the, contrasted, 
35-39. 



INDEX 



385 



Parables of Christ, views of 
Christian Socialists concern- 
ing, 223-224. 

Parochial schools, 195-197, 366, 
367. 

Patriotism as a growth of the 
Catholic creed, 370-373. 

Paul, St., biological concept of 
society found in, 51 ; on mar- 
riage, 121. 

Pay, question of regulation of, 
by Socialists, for different 
grades of work, 272-273, 325- 
329. 

Pearson, Karl, on the differing 
views of Socialism and Chris- 
tianity, 161. 

Philosophy, a poor substitute 
for the religion of Christ, 88- 
89. 

Pittsburg, conditions in, to be 
cited by Socialists, 254-255. 

Pius X, Pope, 13-14. 

Polygamy, the forbidding of, 
by the Church, 148. 

Poor relief, State interference in, 
366, 368. 

Poverty, statistics of, in United 
Kingdom and United States, 
339. . 

Private initiative as a factor in 
social progress, 354-361. 

Private property, the material 
basis of society, 237 ; signifies 
man's individual sovereignty 
over his home, capital, inheri- 
tance, etc., 238; to be de- 
fended rather than attacked, 
239 ; blocks the way of So- 
cialism, 240 ; distinction be- 
tween Catholic and socialist 
reforms connected with, 240- 
244 ; statement of position 
of Socialism as to, 245-246 ; 
right of individual to own, 
upheld by Catholic Church, 
246 ff. ; right to own, is a 

2c 



divine disposition, 248 ; a 
result of man's duty to pro- 
vide for himself and right of 
self -development, 250-252 ; the 
family, a God-given institu- 
tion, justifies ownership of, 
252-253 ; material for argu- 
ments of Socialists against, 
254-257 ; society has gone 
on under regime of, 258 ; un- 
deniable abuses of system, 
and need of reform, 258-259 ; 
care taken by men of their 
own property, 259-260; as a 
stimulus to development of 
character, 261 ; Catholic doc- 
trine of rights of, will accom- 
plish what Socialism cannot, 
262 ; administration of, the 
best training for administra- 
tion of public affairs, 263- 
265 ; ownership of, a source 
of social stability, 265-268; 
fallacies of State ownership, 
273-277 ; wherein taxation of, 
differs from socialization, 275- 
276 ; man's natural desire 
for ownership of, 284-285 ; 
injustice of State acquisition 
and control of, 286 ff. ; the 
natural right to ownership of, 
287-289 ; recognized methods 
of acquiring concrete rights 
to, 289-293; obligations ac- 
companying ownership of, 293- 
294 ; distinction between con- 
trol and use or enjoyment of, 
294-297 ; social obligations ac- 
companying ownership of, 
296 ff. ; duty of the State 
toward right of, 303-304; 
criticism of theory of absolute 
right of, 305-306; remedy 
provided by the Church, for 
abuses against which Social- 
ism protests, 306 ; judgment 
of the Church, on the wisdom 



386 



INDEX 



of possession of, 308-309 ; 

the Church's stand between 

the two conflicting dogmas 

of, 310-311. 
Profit-sharing systems, 355-356. 
Prophets, denunciations by the, 

adopted as a socialistic basis, 

227. 
Proudfoot, S., quoted, 207 n. 



R 



Race suicide, 142-143 ; made 
rational by Socialism, 147. 

Railways, in the socialist State, 
57 ; State-owned, 273-275. 

Religion, attitude of Socialism 
toward, 45 ff., 153 ff. ; line 
of separation between the 
State and, in the Catholic 
view, 67, 68 ; necessity of, to 
existence of society, 116 ; teach- 
ings of Socialist Party of 
Great Britain concerning, 170- 
174 ; anti-Christian teachings 
of the Social Democratic Fed- 
eration, 181 ; nature of the 
teachings of the Independent 
Labour Party, 181-185; at- 
tacks of German Socialists 
on, 184 ; the Fabian Society's 
views of Socialism and, 187 ff. ; 
incompatibility of Socialism 
and, 203-207 ; viewed as a 
working-class soporific, opium 
of the people, 205 ; the future, 
of the workingman to be "class 
religion," 314; the mistake of 
turning out, from schools, 
366. See also Christian So- 
cialism. 

Religious Orders, difference be- 
tween life of, and Socialism, 
233-235. 

Remuneration for work under 
a socialist regime, 272-273, 
325-329. 



Reward, the hope of, as a stimu- 
lus to human action, 107- 
108 ; determination of char- 
acter of, proposed by man as 
his object, 109. 

Roberts, Peter, quoted, 342. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, quoted, 
212-213. 

Russell, Charles E., quoted, 
203. 

Russell, Hon. Charles, certain 
misrepresentations of, 275. 



Sadler, Professor, quoted on 
denominational schools, 367. 

Schaffle, on Socialism and athe- 
ism, 159. 

Schaeffel, on hostility of Socialism 
to religion and the Church, 
161. 

Schools, 133, 134-135; Catholic 
vs. secular, 195-197 ; the mis- 
take of turning religion out 
of, 366. 

Scott, Professor, on restriction 
of size of families, 142-143. 

Secularization of schools, 134, 
367. 

Shaw, Bernard, irreverence, anti- 
Christianity, and Socialism of, 
190 ; cited, 272. 

Signs, Christ's miracles called, 
220, 222. 

Social Democratic Federation, 
teachings of, viewed from 
religious standpoint, 181. 

Social Democratic Party, open 
antagonism of, to Christianity, 
206. 

Socialism, as a rival of the Pa- 
pacy in devising a remedy for 
evils in the social organism, 
35-36 ; economic claims of, 
36 ; more than a bare question 
of economics, 37 ; a philosophy 



INDEX 



387 



of human progress, 37-38 ; 
set over against Christianity, 
38-39 ; the irreconcilable an- 
tagonism between the Church 
and, 40 ff., 153 ff . ; is based 
upon a materialistic theory of 
evolution, 42-45 ; alliance be- 
tween atheism and, 45-46 ; 
deadly conditions in the logical 
State of, 55-56 ; lack of a 
spiritual ideal in the scheme 
of, 74 ; recognition of impos- 
sibility of individualism carried 
to an extreme by, 75-76 ; 
mistake of forgetting that 
true individualism is a neces- 
sary basis of sound Democracy, 
79 ; inconsistency of, in specu- 
lating in futures, when rail- 
ing at Christianity for "dealing 
in futures," 80; the "wait and 
see" policy of, 82; wherein 
specially lacking as compared 
with Christianity, 87-88 ; rec- 
ord of Christian charity con- 
trasted with record of, 91-94; 
effects of Christianity and of, 
on enterprise, 94-96 ; power 
of Christianity on human pas- 
sions contrasted with that of, 
96-100 ; in reality selfishness 
is being fostered by, 102-103 ; 
in substituting State action 
for individual action, inverts 
the natural order, 110-112; 
as a theory of life and an all- 
embracing ideal found to be 
dangerous and insidious, 116; 
and the family, 118 ff.; to be 
specially denounced and con- 
demned as a menace to the 
family, 150-152 ; utterances 
of its leaders prove it antago- 
nistic to Christianity, 155- 
177 ; gospel of redemption 
through the work of socialistic 
principles preached by, 175- 



176 ; in England does not dif- 
fer from continental, 180 ; 
repudiation of Christian So- 
cialism by, 198-202 ; private 
property blocks the way of, 
240 ; tendency to apply name 
to any proposals for public 
control, 240-241 ; the chasm 
between Catholicism and, in 
ultimate if not immediate 
social reforms, 241-244 ; ef- 
forts to enlist the Church 
Fathers in the cause, 246- 
247 ; material for arguments 
of, against private ownership, 
254-257 ; question of ability 
of, to carry out its promises, 
257 ff. ; objections to, on the 
score of leading to reckless 
public expenditure through 
lack of training in adminis- 
tration of private affairs, 259- 
261 ; in doing away with the 
family, does away with the 
best school of citizenship and 
administration of affairs, 262- 
265 ; would prejudice the 
healthy development of char- 
acter by taking away pri- 
vate capital,. 262-265 ; would 
weaken social stability, 265- 
268 ; questions concerning right 
of employers to enjoy surplus 
values, different pay for dif- 
ferent kinds of work, and 
State ownership, taxation, etc., 
269-277; and the duties of 
ownership, 278 ff. ; destruc- 
tion of man's freedom by, 
283 ff. ; unnaturalness of, 283; 
the essence of, that all means 
of production should be trans- 
ferred to the community, 306- 
307 ; the promises made by, 
312-329 ; and social reforma- 
tion, 330 ff. ; good found in, 
in way of example of energy 



388 



INDEX 



set by, and in calling attention 
to social evils, 330-331 ; spe- 
cific grounds for condemnation 
of, 332-333. 

V Socialism, Its Growth and Out- 
come," quoted and criticised, 
145-146. 

"Socialism, Positive and Nega- 
tive," quoted, 146. 

"Socialism vs. Religion," pam- 
phlet, quoted, 171-174. 

Socialist Party of Great Britain, 
teachings of, on religion, 170- 
174. 

Socialist Primer, the, 135. 

Social justice, the term, 302 n. 

Social science, incentive given 
to, by Socialism, 331. 

Social stability, private owner- 
ship as a source of, 265-268. 

Society, the Catholic view of, 
59 ff . ; the biological concept 
of, 47-55. 

Soul, individuality of the, 76-79. 

Sozial Demokrat, quoted on the 
enmity between Christianity 
and Socialism, 163. 

Spargo, John, quoted on real 
significance of Socialism, 37 ; 
mentioned, 56 ; on Socialism 
and Christianity, 156-157 ; 
views Christianity as a stage 
only in the process of soul evo- 
lution, 177 ; mentioned, 324, 
327. 

Spencer, Herbert, cited, 56 ; on 
the necessity of religion to 
society, 116. 

State, the socialist view of the, 
42-51 ; misconception of the, 
as a real organism in which 
man is but a cell, 49-55 ; a 
foreshadowing of final out- 
come of socialist view of, 
55-56 ; the Catholic view of, 
as opposed to the socialist, 
59-70 ; two purposes of, to 



protect man's rights and to 
assist him to do what he can- 
not do for himself, 63-64; 
duties regarding economic mat- 
ters, 66-67 ; not concerned 
with morals and religion of 
individuals, 67 ; authority of, 
limited to matters pertaining 
to the general welfare, 67- 
68 ; from the Catholic stand- 
point a God-given institution, 
69-71 ; sacrifice of the in- 
dividual for the, by Socialism, 
83 ; attitude of, toward own- 
ership of property, according 
to Socialism and the Church, 
112-114; function of, to pro- 
tect man and his property, 
rather than to absorb, 275- 
277 ; duty of, toward the right 
of property, 303-305; im- 
possibility of organizing a 
Socialist, 323-325. 

State ownership, fallacies of, 
273-275. 

Staudlein, "Universal Church 
History" by, quoted, 31. 

Suicide, significance of number 
of cases of, in United States, 
366. 

Surplus value, right of employer 
to, 269-272. 

Sweating, in the United States, 
269 ; in England, 337. 



Taxation vs. socialization of prop- 
erty, 275-277. 

Tertullian and Socialism, 231- 
232. 

Theocracy, errors in reasoning 
of Christian Socialists on the, 
225-227. 

Thomas of Aquin, St., biological 
concept of society used by, 
51 ; quoted, 64 ; teaching as 



INDEX 



389 



to right of man to acquire 
necessities for maintenance of 
his life, 250 ; on ownership and 
use of property, 293-294, 295- 
296, 309-310. 

Thomas of Canterbury, St., 24. 

Thrift, not a plank in the plat- 
form of Socialism, 202-203. 



U 

United Kingdom, statistics of 
poverty in, 339. 

United States, divorces in, 131 ; 
conditions among the poor in, 
339-345. 

Use of property, distinction be- 
tween control and, 294-297. 



Volkszeitung, New York, quoted 
on disbelief of Socialists in the 
Saviour, 162. 

Vorwarts, the Berlin, quoted on 
hostility of Socialism to reli- 
gion, 161-162 ; parodies of 
Christian institutions in, 163- 
164. 

W 

Wage, the obligation to pay a 
just, 299. 

Wages, rates of, for different 
classes of work, 272-273 ; ques- 
tion of adjustment of, in the 
Socialist Commonwealth, 325- 
329 ; low rates of, in England, 
337; in United States, 340- 
343 ; the securing of living, 
by legislation, 350-353. 

Wahre Jakob, parodies of Chris- 
tian institutions in the, 164. 



Ward, Professor, quoted, 45. 

Wealth, viewed as a trust, 297. 

Welfare work, 356-357. 

Wells, H. G., on the home, 140; 
on the anti-Christian tone of 
Socialism of Marx and Engels, 
156 ; on the relations between 
Socialism and religion, 165 ; 
on the anti-religious tone of 
the Social Democratic Federa- 
tion, 181 ; assertion that Brit- 
ish Socialism is not antagonistic 
to the Church, 186-187 ; analy- 
sis of his appeal to the Fabian 
Society, 187 ff. ; analysis of 
propositions of, concerning the 
Catholic Church and Socialism, 
190-195 ; quoted on education 
under a socialist regime, 195- 
196. 

Westcott, Bishop, quoted, 127. 

Whalley Abbey, 25. 

Woman, proper position given 
to, by Christianity, 126-127; 
the question of, in the socialist 
plan, 144-147. 

"Woman," socialist book, 145. 

Workingmen, present condition 
contrasted with position in 
Dark Ages, 18-20; debt of, 
to the Church, 20-23; the 
Church takes the part of, now 
as earlier, 32 ; Leo XIII's 
Encyclical on Labour called the 
charter of the, 32-34; right 
of, to a share in surplus value, 
269-271 ; appeals of Socialism 
to, 312 ff.; the coming " Class 
Religion" of, 314; social 
wrongs of, 333-345. 

Wright, Carroll D., on labour 
legislation in United States, 
349-350. 



T^HE following pages contain advertisements 
of works by Abbot Gasquet, D.D., O.S.B. 



WORKS BY ABBOT GASQUET, D.D., O.S.B. 



JUST PUBLISHED 

England Under the Old Religion 

Cloth, 8vo, $2.00 net 

The Eve of the Reformation 

FOURTH EDITION 

Studies in the Religious Life and Thought of the Eng- 
lish People in the Period preceding the Rejection of 
the Roman Jurisdiction 

" Dr. Gasquet has produced a book which will set many men think- 
ing. He has done an excellent piece of work, and has offered to stu- 
dents of history a highly interesting problem." — Athenceum. 

Cloth, 8vo, $2.00 net 

Henry VIII and the English Monasteries 

SIXTH EDITION 

"The work of Abbot Gasquet on the dissolution of the English 
monasteries is so well known and so widely appreciated that little may 
be said to commend the new edition. The criticism of nearly twenty 
years has served only to show that the views, expressed by the author 
in the original edition, are shared by every candid student of the 
events of that period." — Scottish Historical Review. 

... ;, .;;• Cloth, 8vo, $2. so net 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 



WORKS BY ABBOT GASQUET, D.D., O.S.B. 



The Black Death of 1 348 and 1 349 

SECOND EDITION 
" By far the most interesting and exhaustive record to be found of 
this most appalling visitation." — The London Morning Post. 

Cloth, 8vo, $2.00 net 

The Last Abbot of Glastonbury, 
and Other Essays 

With ii Illustrations 
"The volume was wanted, for although the story is a tragedy from 
beginning to end, yet there is an element of noble heroism in the 
dramatis persona which relieves the pervading gloom. The book is a 
considerable contribution to the literature of this painful subject." 

— Athenaum. 
Cloth, 8vo, $2.00 net 

The Old English Bible, and Other Essays 

SECOND EDITION 

Cloth, 8vo, $2.25 net 

Henry III and the Church 

A Study of his Ecclesiastical Policy, and of the Rela- 
tions between England and Rome 

" It is written with no desire to defend the Papacy from the charges 
which were made even by the faithful at the time, and it may fairly 
claim to represent an unbiassed survey of the evidence." 

Cloth, 8vo, $4.00 net 



THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 



NOV 29 !9!i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

nil 

029 826 040 2 



